Aesthetic Botulinum A Toxin in the Mid and Lower Face and Neck
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A (BOTOX formulation) is used extensively for smoothing hyperkinetic lines in the upper face. The use of botulinum toxin for aesthetic indications in the mid and lower face and neck is now becoming increasingly popular. OBJECTIVE: To review our current approaches to botulinum toxin treatment for cosmetic indications in the mid and lower face and neck. METHODS: Procedures and outcomes are described for the primary and adjunctive use of botulinum toxin. RESULTS: Cosmetic treatment with botulinum toxin successfully changes the contour of the palebral aperture; smoothes lines, including "bunny" lines, perioral rhytides, and horizontal neck lines; softens creases, including the mental crease and melomental folds; and alleviates facial asymmetry and nasal flare. The doses of botulinum toxin used in the mid and lower face are generally lower than those used in the upper face. Caution must be used in injecting botulinum toxin in the perioral area to avoid an incompetent mouth. CONCLUSION: Botulinum toxin treatment is valuable for aesthetic improvements in the mid and lower face and neck. In some areas, particularly the perioral region, the use of botulinum toxin in combination with other therapeutic modalities provides optimal results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it