Upper Face
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cosmetic physicians are more and more frequently asked for hand rejuvenation. They commonly propose the same techniques as for the face. The authors undertook an anatomical study of the hand dorsum to understand the optimal location for an injected filler and to design the safest technique of placement. METHODS: The first part of the study included dissections of 19 fresh cadaveric hands and duplex ultrasounds investigation of 28 healthy hands. A technique of injection specifically designed from anatomical findings was then tested on 8 fresh cadaveric hands using magnetic resonance imaging and dissection in comparison with 3 other commonly used techniques of rejuvenating injections. RESULTS: Between the dermis and the tendons, the thickness of the fascial plane was measured from 0.3 to 2.2 mm. Because of numerous fibrous septa, the entire plane was found as a 3-dimensional sponge-like framework. Veins could be located in all levels of this framework. There was no predefined free space. The optimal place for the deposition of a filler was found to be the undersurface of the dermis. The specific technique named Scrape Skin Threading Technique and using a cannula scraping the deep side of the dermis was checked as the only technique which could give a perfect placement of product restricted to the fascial layer. CONCLUSION: The Scrape Skin Threading Technique was designed to inject safely and accurately any kind of injectable in contact with the undersurface of the dermis, which appeared anatomically as the optimal location of a filler for enhancing the outer appearance of the dorsum of hands.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.461 | 0.255 |
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".