Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the last few years, injectable soft-tissue fillers have become an integral part of cosmetic therapy, with a wide array of products designed to fill lines and folds and revolumize the face. METHODS: This review describes cosmetic fillers currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration and discusses new agents under investigation for use in the United States. RESULTS: Because of product refinements over the last few years-greater ease of use and longevity, the flexibility of multiple formulations within one line of products, and the ability to reverse poor clinical outcomes-practitioners have gravitated toward the use of biodegradable agents that stimulate neocollagenesis for sustained aesthetic improvements lasting up to a year or more with minimal side effects. Permanent implants provide long-lasting results but are associated with greater potential risk of complications and require the skilled hand of the experienced injector. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable filling agents are available or under investigation in the United States. Choice of product depends on injector preference and the area to be filled. Although permanent agents offer significant clinical benefits, modern biodegradable fillers are durable and often reversible in the event of adverse effects.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".