Dilution Volume of Botulinum Toxin Type A for the Treatment of Glabellar Rhytides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because well-controlled studies examining the efficacy and safety of various dilutions of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) have not been performed, dilutions used in clinical practice are chosen at the discretion of the clinician. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine the most effective BTX-A dilution for the glabellar region, the relationship between dilution and duration of effect, and the side effect profile of each dilution in women with glabellar rhytides. METHODS: Eighty women with moderate-to-severe wrinkles at maximum frown were randomized to one of four dilution groups in a 48-week, single-center, double-blind, parallel-group study. Subjects received 30 U BTX-A (BOTOX, Allergan, Inc.) injected into the glabellar region at dilutions of 100, 33.3, 20, or 10 U/mL. Outcome measures included trained-observer and subject assessment of wrinkle severity at repose and at maximum muscle contraction using the Facial Wrinkle Scale (FWS) and adverse events. RESULTS: All dilutions of BTX-A effectively improved glabellar rhytides as assessed by both trained observers and subjects using the FWS. No significant differences on FWS scores were seen among the dilution groups by trained observers at any time point. Although a difference among groups was seen in subject-assessed responder rates, there was no obvious relationship between dilution and response. BTX-A treatment was well tolerated, and there were no significant differences between the four dilution groups in the number of subjects reporting adverse effects. CONCLUSION: In this study, the dilution of BTX-A was not critical to the success of treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".