Randomized, Double‐Blind Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Hyaluronic Acid Derivatives, Restylane Perlane and Hylaform, in the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cross-linked hyaluronic acid gels may offer longer-lasting cosmetic correction and a lower risk of immunogenicity than other soft tissue augmentation agents. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a non-animal-stabilized hyaluronic acid gel (Restylane Perlane, Q-Med, Uppsala, Sweden) with that of a hylan B gel (Hylaform, Genzyme Corp., Cambridge, MA, USA), a cross-linked hyaluronic acid from chicken combs, for treatment of nasolabial folds. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients with moderate or severe nasolabial folds were randomized to contralateral treatment with Restylane Perlane and Hylaform. Efficacy was assessed using semi-objective outcome instruments at 3, 4.5, and 6 months after achievement of an "optimal cosmetic result". Patients subsequently underwent open-label bilateral retreatment with Restylane Perlane (if required) and were followed up for a further 6 months. RESULTS: The two products were equally effective in producing an optimal cosmetic result, although fewer treatment sessions were required with Restylane Perlane. At 6 months post-treatment, a higher proportion of patients showed a > or = 1-grade improvement in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score with Restylane Perlane (75%) than with Hylaform (38%). Restylane Perlane was considered superior in 64% of patients, whereas Hylaform was superior in 8% of patients. Treatment-related adverse events tended to be more frequent with Restylane Perlane. Local injection-site reactions were generally transient and mild or moderate in intensity and were no more frequent after Restylane Perlane retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Restylane Perlane provides a more durable esthetic improvement than Hylaform and offers acceptable tolerability.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it