Consensus Statement Regarding Storage and Reuse of Previously Reconstituted Neuromodulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Legacy recommendations suggest that vials of botulinum toxin be used within 24 hours of reconstitution and in a single patient. Current standard of care is consistent with storage after reconstitution and use of a single vial for several patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop expert consensus regarding the effectiveness and safety of storage and reuse of botulinum toxin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery authorized a task force of content experts to review the literature and provide guidance. Data extraction was followed by clinical question review, a consensus Delphi process, and validation of the results by peer review. RESULTS: After 2 rounds of Delphi process, the task force concluded by unanimous consensus and with the highest level of confidence that a vial of toxin reconstituted appropriately can, for facial muscle indications, be (1) refrigerated or refrozen for at least 4 weeks before injection without significant risk for contamination or decreased effectiveness and (2) used to treat multiple patients, assuming appropriate handling. CONCLUSION: The standard of care, which allows for use of botulinum toxin more than 24 hours after reconstitution and in more than 1 patient per vial, is appropriate and consistent with the safe and effective practice of medicine.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".