A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel- Group, Dose-Ranging Study of Botulinum Toxin Type A in Female Subjects With Horizontal Forehead Rhytides
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: Botulinum toxin type A is used cosmetically to improve facial lines, but it has not been thoroughly investigated for the treatment of horizontal forehead rhytides. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of three doses of botulinum toxin type A in females with horizontal forehead rhytides and to establish whether the response rate and the duration of response are dose dependent. METHODS: Fifty-nine female patients with horizontal forehead rhytides scoring 2 (moderate) or 3 (severe) on the facial wrinkle scale (FWS) were randomly assigned to receive 16, 32, or 48 U of botulinum toxin type A (BOTOX, BOTOX Cosmetic; Allergan, Irvine, CA), which was administered to eight injection sites. Half of the dose was administered to the brow depressors and the other half to the elevators. Wrinkle severity was assessed by the investigator and patient using the FWS at baseline, at Weeks 2 and 4, and then every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. RESULTS: Improvements in horizontal rhytides were observed in all dosage groups. Significant dose-response trends were observed for rate of improvement at maximum brow elevation (53% in the 48-U group vs. 15% in the 16-U group at 16 weeks) and rate of relapse to baseline (35% in the 48-U group vs. 75% in the 16-U group at 16 weeks) by a trained observer. CONCLUSION: Higher botulinum toxin type A doses resulted in greater efficacy and longer duration of effect in the reduction of horizontal rhytides.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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