Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Botulinum Toxin Type A for Patients with Glabellar Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of glabellar lines. Patients with moderate or severe glabellar lines at maximal frown received intramuscular injections of placebo or 20 U of botulinum toxin type A (Botox; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, Calif.) distributed among five injection sites (one in the procerus muscle and two in each corrugator supercilii). Follow-up assessments were performed at 7, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days after injections. Efficacy measures were the physician's rating of glabellar line severity at maximal frown and at rest (none, mild, moderate, or severe) and the patient's global assessment of changes in glabellar lines, from +4 (100 percent better) to -4 (100 percent worse). A total of 273 patients were enrolled (botulinum toxin, 202 patients; placebo, 71 patients). All except five patients (botulinum toxin, two patients; placebo, three patients) completed the study. For the physician's rating at maximal frown, the responder rate (percentage of patients with severity ratings of none or mild in follow-up evaluations) for the botulinum toxin group peaked at 77 percent at day 30 and was significantly greater than that for the placebo group at every follow-up visit (p < 0.001). For the patient's assessment, the responder rate (percentage of patients with scores of +2 or more) for the botulinum toxin group peaked at 89 percent at day 30 and was significantly greater than that for the placebo group at every follow-up visit (p < 0.001). Rates of adverse events were similar for the two groups. The only adverse event with an incidence of >/=5 percent was headache (botulinum toxin, 11 percent; placebo, 20 percent). The incidence of blepharoptosis was 1 percent for the botulinum toxin group. Botulinum toxin type A was remarkably safe and effective in reducing glabellar lines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".