Dose-Ranging Study of Botulinum Toxin Type A in the Treatment of Glabellar Rhytids in Females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and duration of effect of four doses of botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of glabellar rhytids in females. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, dose-ranging trial followed by an open-label extension. SETTING: Private dermatologic clinic. SUBJECTS: Eighty female subjects with moderate to severe wrinkles at maximum frown entered the study. The first 40 subjects completing the double-blind phase entered the open-label extension. INTERVENTION: Random administration of 10, 20, 30, or 40 U botulinum toxin type A in divided doses. Open-label trial: 30 U botulinum toxin type A at the same sites in divided doses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Trained observer and subject assessments of wrinkle severity at maximum frown and repose using the Facial Wrinkle Scale (0 = none to 3 = severe), subject satisfaction, and adverse events. Follow-up monthly for up to 1 year postinjection. RESULTS: Relapse rates and responder rates revealed benefits lasting 3 to 6 months or longer. Objectively, 10 U of botulinum toxin type A was significantly less effective than 20, 30, or 40 U. The relapse rate at 4 months was significantly higher in the 10 U group (83%) versus 40, 30, or 20 U (28%, 30%, and 33%, respectively). Subject satisfaction was high in all groups. Duration of effect and response rates were sustained during the open-label extension. Adverse effects were mild and infrequent. CONCLUSION: Twenty to 40 U botulinum toxin type A doses were significantly more effective at reducing glabellar lines than 10 U. Most subjects experienced benefits for 3 to 4 months; some subjects demonstrated effect for up to 12 months.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".