Skin Biomechanical Changes after Injection of Onabotulinum Toxin A: Prospective Assessment of Elasticity and Pliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the administration of onabotulinum toxin A will result in an increase in skin pliability and elasticity. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective case series with planned data collection in which patients were treated with onabotulinum toxin and assessed at baseline, 2 weeks post-injection, and 2 months post-injection. SETTING: A private cosmetic surgery clinic associated with a tertiary academic hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty women were prospectively enrolled to receive onabotulinum toxin A into their glabella, forehead, and lateral orbit. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks posttreatment, and 2 months posttreatment using the Cutometer MPA 580. Skin pliability (Uf) and the elastic recoil (Ua/Uf) were recorded as the 2 primary outcome measures. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of onabotulinum toxin on skin elasticity (f = 47.8, P = .001) with a mean (+/- SE) increase in elastic recoil of 20% (4.4%) for the glabellar region (P < .001) and 18% (4.0%) for the lateral orbit (P < .0001). There was a significant effect of the treatment on skin pliability (f = 46.9, P < .001) with a mean (+/- SE) increase of 26% (5.4%) for the lateral orbit (P = .001) and 52% (8.3%) for the glabellar region (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Injection of onabotulinum toxin into the lateral orbital, forehead, and glabellar regions results in skin that has increased pliability as well as increased elastic recoil. Although this study demonstrates the positive effect of onabotulinum toxin on biomechanical parameters, it is unclear what specific histological changes are occurring within the skin.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".