Injectable DaxibotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Glabellar Lines: A Phase 2, Randomized, Dose-Ranging, Double-Blind, Multicenter Comparison With OnabotulinumtoxinA and Placebo
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injectable daxibotulinumtoxinA (RT002) is an investigational botulinum toxin Type A in clinical development. It is formulated with a proprietary peptide and offers the potential of a longer acting neurotoxin therapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy, and duration of response of daxibotulinumtoxinA with onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo [www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02303002]. METHODS: In this Phase 2, randomized, dose-ranging, parallel-group, double-blind, multicenter study, subjects with moderate or severe glabellar lines at maximum frown were randomly assigned to 20U, 40U, or 60U daxibotulinumtoxinA, 20U onabotulinumtoxinA, or placebo. Glabellar line severity was evaluated by investigators and subjects at least every 4 weeks, for at least 24 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 268 subjects enrolled. Statistical and clinical superiority were observed for 40U and 60U daxibotulinumtoxinA over 20U onabotulinumtoxinA for a range of efficacy outcomes despite the study not being powered to detect statistically significant differences between these active treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The 40U dose of daxibotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated (e.g., absence of ptosis) and had the most favorable risk: benefit profile. Compared with 20U onabotulinumtoxinA, it exhibited a significantly greater response rate and a significantly longer duration of response (median of 24 weeks vs 19 weeks; p = .030).
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it