Aesthetic Botulinum A Toxin in the Mid and Lower Face and Neck
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".