MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Solid State Hyaluronic Acid Threads

2013· article· en· W2328010206 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Grant Stevens, Nowell Solish, Arthur Swift

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForeheadContouringHyaluronic acidWrinkleAdverse effectNasolabial foldSurgeryClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Dermal fillers are effective for temporary volume augmentation, especially for deep features like NLFs. This is due to volume expansion, with relatively little precision in placement. Neurotoxins are effective at treating rhytids, but can have undesirable effects on facial expression. Available fillers and neurotoxins are not always optimal for treating fine or long, linear wrinkles, such as necklace lines, transverse forehead wrinkles, and lip contouring. To address these clinical needs, a novel hyaluronic acid (HA) product has been developed which is comprised of a dehydrated, solid HA thread attached to a 27 gauge straight needle. The HA thread is implanted by being pulled into position by the needle, whereupon the thread hydrates and slowly reverts back to a gel. METHODS: A first-in-human prospective multi-center study was conducted in Canada. The primary endpoint was safety, and the secondary endpoints were aesthetic result as assessed by the Investigator, Independent Reviewer, and subject. Photographic documentation was captured by CanfieldScientific. NLFs were rated by a Wrinkle Severity Scale and any other area was rated by a Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. Subjects received bilateral treatment in one area; NLF, forehead, perioral (including vermillion boarder), necklace lines or crow’s feet. One retreatment was allowed at the 2-week follow-up. Follow-ups were at 1, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: 72 patients were enrolled and completed this study. At least 10 were enrolled in each of the 5 treatment areas. There were no severe or unanticipated adverse events. Overall, the adverse event rates were comparable or better than published rates for HA dermal fillers. Almost all subjects demonstrated improved aesthetic outcomes despite conservative implantation methods initially. Many subjects demonstrated aesthetic improvement between the 1 and 3month follow-ups. CONCLUSION: The results from this clinical study demonstrate that HA threads are safe, and can be effective in treating difficult areas such as necklace lines, horizontal forehead lines, vermillion boarders, as well as more common areas such as NLFs and crow’s feet. The product lends itself well to features that are linear in nature, whether fine or deep. HA threads are a highly novel, differentiated product that complements injectable fillers and neurotoxins for minimally invasive facial rejuvenation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207