Subject Satisfaction With OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment of Glabellar and Lateral Canthal Lines Using a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction with treatment is an important outcome in facial aesthetic medicine. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate subject satisfaction with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment of glabellar lines (GL) and crow's feet lines (CFL) using the validated Facial Line Satisfaction Questionnaire (FLSQ). METHODS: In this randomized double-blind study, subjects with moderate/severe GL and CFL received onabotulinumtoxinA (20 U, GL; 24 U, CFL) or placebo. Over 120 days, the following were assessed: satisfaction, achievement of treatment expectations, satisfaction with duration of treatment (FLSQ), severity of GL and CFL (Facial Wrinkle Scale [FWS]), and aesthetic improvement (Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale). RESULTS: Satisfaction in the per-protocol population was significantly greater at Day 60 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (n = 60) compared with placebo (n = 57) for GL (81.7% vs 0%; p < .001). Most subjects treated with onabotulinumtoxinA remained satisfied up to 120 days. Achievement of treatment expectations (86.7%; Day 60), satisfaction (81.7%; Day 60), and satisfaction with the duration of treatment (61.6%; Day 90) were significantly better with onabotulinumtoxinA than placebo (p < .001) for GL and CFL combined. Efficacy (FWS) and aesthetic improvement were observed in most subjects at Days 30 and 60, respectively. CONCLUSION: High satisfaction rates are achieved and sustained in subjects treated with onabotulinumtoxinA for GL and CFL combined.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".