Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel-Group, Dose-Ranging Study of Botulinum Toxin Type A in Men with Glabellar Rhytids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effective dose for treating glabellar lines with botulinum toxin type A in men has not been studied adequately. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy, and duration of response of four doses of botulinum toxin type A on glabellar rhytids in men. METHODS: Eighty men were randomized to receive a total dose of either 20, 40, 60, or 80 U of botulinum toxin type A (BOTOX, BOTOX Cosmetic, or Vistabel, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) in the glabellar area. Glabellar lines were assessed at rest and maximum frown by a trained observer at baseline, 2 and 4 weeks, and monthly thereafter. Patients provided self-evaluations at the same visits. Adverse events were monitored throughout. RESULTS: The 40, 60, and 80 U doses of botulinum toxin type A were consistently more effective in reducing glabellar lines than the 20 U dose (duration, peak response rate, improvement from baseline). There was a dose-dependent increase in both the response rate at maximum frown and the duration of effect assessed by the trained observer. In addition, the participants reported a dose-dependent reduction in the ability to frown, improvement in their global assessment, and increased feelings of attractiveness, self-confidence, and satisfaction. The incidence of adverse events was not increased with higher doses. CONCLUSION: Male participants with glabellar rhytids benefit from starting doses of at least 40 U of botulinum toxin type A.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".