Rejuvenation of the Upper Face and Periocular Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The upper face and periocular region is a complex and dynamic part of the face. Successful rejuvenation requires a combination of minimally invasive modalities to fill dents and hollows, resurface rhytides, improve pigmentation, and smooth the mimetic muscles of the face without masking facial expression. METHODS: Using review of the literature and clinical experience, the authors discuss our strategy for combining botulinum toxin, facial filler, ablative laser, intense pulsed light, microfocused ultrasound, and microneedle fractional radiofrequency to treat aesthetic problems of the upper face including brow ptosis, temple volume loss, A-frame deformity of the superior sulcus, and superficial and deep rhytides. RESULTS: With attention to safety recommendations, injectable, light, laser, and energy-based treatments can be safely combined in experienced hands to provide enhanced outcomes in the rejuvenation of the upper face. CONCLUSION: Providing multiple treatments in 1 session improves patient satisfaction by producing greater improvements in a shorter amount of time and with less overall downtime than would be necessary with multiple office visits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".