Evaluation of the Merz Hand Grading Scale After Calcium Hydroxylapatite Hand Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement scales that quickly and rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of filler treatment in hands are important tools in clinical practice. The Merz Hand Grading Scale (MHGS) is used to grade the appearance of the dorsal hand. The MHGS has been validated for photographic and live assessment of the hands. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of the 5-point MHGS to detect clinically meaningful and aesthetically pleasing changes in hand appearance after treatment with a calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA)-based dermal filler. METHODS: The controlled 4-week study randomized 30 subjects (60 hands) 2:1 to a Treatment group (treatment at enrollment) or a Control group (treatment at end of study). Effectiveness was evaluated with live MHGS ratings and photographic assessments with the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). RESULTS: At Week 4, all Treatment group subjects (20/20) achieved a ≥1-point improvement on the MHGS compared with 0/10 (0%) of the Control group (p < .0001). Subjects and treating physicians rated 92.5% (37/40) and 100% (40/40), respectively, of hands as at least "improved," using the GAIS. CONCLUSION: The MHGS is an appropriate and validated tool that clinicians can use to counsel patients and evaluate clinically meaningful and aesthetically pleasing changes after hand treatment with CaHA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".