Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The article reviews literature on three distinct Asian facial aesthetic surgical procedures: Asian upper blepharoplasty, Asian augmentation rhinoplasty, and Asian skeletal facial contouring, which are considered to be unique in facial aesthetic procedures among Asians. RECENT FINDINGS: Asian upper blepharoplasty is not a Westernization procedure. Minimally invasive or noninvasive techniques such as use of continuous buried tarsal stitch have gained popularity. A separate incision for epicanthoplasty has been advocated. ePTFE as an alloplastic material has gained popularity in Asian augmentation rhinoplasty. Soft ePTFE sheets as augmentation material provide promise in the future. The popular choice for reduction malarplasty currently is to be able to perform procedure safely via intraoral approach. The current concept for lower facial reduction is a combined lateral mandibular reduction and reduction of angle of mandible and hypertrophic masseter muscle. SUMMARY: Three distinct sets of Asian facial aesthetic surgical procedures have been discussed via history, anatomy, technique, and current opinions. Familiarity with the culture, aesthetic, anatomic and technical components of these procedures is essential for a successful outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".