Efficacy and Safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Crows Feet Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was part of a Phase 3 program treating crow's feet lines (CFL) with onabotulinumtoxinA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment of CFL. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 5-month study randomized subjects with moderate-to-severe CFL (maximum smile) to onabotulinumtoxinA (24 U; n = 222) or placebo (n = 223). Investigators and subjects assessed CFL severity (maximum smile and rest) using the 4-grade Facial Wrinkle Scale (FWS). Co-primary end points were investigator- and subject-assessed proportion of subjects achieving a CFL FWS grade of 0 (none) or 1 (mild) at maximum smile (Day 30). Additional efficacy end points, patient-reported outcomes, and safety/adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: All primary and secondary end points were achieved; statistically significant differences favored onabotulinumtoxinA (p < .001, all comparisons vs placebo). Co-primary responder rates were 66.7% compared with 6.7% for investigator-assessed and 58.1% compared with 5.4% for subject-assessed response (onabotulinumtoxinA group and placebo, respectively; p < .001). A significantly greater proportion of the onabotulinumtoxinA group than placebo group achieved a 1 grade or greater improvement on the FWS (maximum smile and rest assessed by both the investigator and subject; all time points; p < .001). Most AEs were mild or moderate and did not result in discontinuations. CONCLUSION: Treatment of moderate-to-severe CFL with onabotulinumtoxinA was effective and well tolerated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".