A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Repeated OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatments in Subjects With Crow's Feet Lines and Glabellar Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This is the third study in a Phase 3 program evaluating onabotulinumtoxinA treatment of crow's feet lines (CFL). OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of repeated onabotulinumtoxinA treatments of CFL alone or with glabellar lines (GL) in subjects with moderate-to-severe CFL and GL (maximum smile). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 5-month extension of a 7-month study randomized subjects who originally received onabotulinumtoxinA 24 U (CFL only; n = 227) or 44 U (24 U for CFL + 20 U for GL; n = 260) to retreatment with the same dose. Placebo-treated subjects were rerandomized to onabotulinumtoxinA 44 U (n = 101) or placebo (n = 96). Primary efficacy end point (Day 30) was the proportion of subjects who achieved a CFL severity rating of none or mild (maximum smile) on the investigator-assessed Facial Wrinkle Scale (FWS). Additional efficacy end points and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: Responder rates (primary end point) were significantly greater in onabotulinumtoxinA-treated groups (24 U: 56.5%; 44 U: 63.6%; placebo: 1.1%; p < .001). Improvements on most patient-reported outcomes (PROs) favored the 44-U group over the 24-U group. Adverse events did not differ among groups; most were mild or moderate. CONCLUSION: Repeated onabotulinumtoxinA treatments significantly reduce CFL severity based on FWS and PROs. Adverse event profiles remain consistent with approved GL labeling.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".