Botulinum Toxin Type A Treatment of Multiple Upper Facial Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aesthetic treatment planning must address subjects' goals and include subject-reported outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the effect of botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNTA) with placebo on subject-reported outcomes and to assess the utility of 64 U of BoNTA to treat the entire upper face. METHODS: Forty female subjects were randomized to receive 64 U of BoNTA or identical placebo injections (double-masked) divided among 16 sites of the upper face and were followed for 12 weeks. Subjects unimproved at Week 4 were eligible for open-label BoNTA treatment and were followed through Week 16. Main outcome measures were scores on seven items of the Facial Line Outcomes Questionnaire (FLO-7) and results on the Self-Perception of Age (SPA) for assessing age of appearance relative to actual age. RESULTS: BoNTA treatment resulted in significant improvements on the FLO-7 scores that were maintained throughout the study. BoNTA treatment also reduced age of appearance in a majority of subjects. Placebo had no effects on any measure. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Sixty-four-unit BoNTA treatment of upper facial rhytids safely and significantly improves subject-reported outcomes, as measured by the FLO-7 and SPA, and results in a younger, more satisfying, relaxed appearance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".