Expanding Treatment Options for Neuromodulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early 21st century, members of the medical community have been both witnesses to and participants in significant changes in the field of aesthetic surgery and medicine, including nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Although some of dermal fillers were available prior to 2000, their indications were primarily therapeutic. Now, various categories of dermal fillers exist, including hyaluronic acid, poly-L-lactic acid, polymethylmethacrylate, calcium hydroxylapatite, and patients' own fibroblasts. Neuromodulators (ie, botulinum toxin type A [BoNTA] formulations) were first approved for therapeutic purposes but quickly gained popularity for aesthetic applications. According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, in 2010, more than 2.4 million patients received treatment with a BoNTA product. Clearly, BoNTA injections have been widely adopted in aesthetic practice, beginning with the approval of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox; Allergan, Irvine, California) in 2002 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar lines associated with corrugator and/or procerus muscle activity in adults 65 years or younger. Off-label applications in areas such as horizontal forehead lines, “crow's feet,” and the perioral area followed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".