Forehead Line Treatment With OnabotulinumtoxinA in Subjects With Forehead and Glabellar Facial Rhytids: A Phase 3 Study
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: Effacement of horizontal forehead lines (FHL) with onabotulinumtoxinA has not been investigated in prospective Phase 3 studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment of FHL together with glabellar lines (GL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-month, Phase 3 study randomized subjects with moderate-to-severe FHL and GL to onabotulinumtoxinA 40 U or placebo, distributed between the frontalis (20 U) and glabellar complex (20 U). After Day 180, subjects could receive up to 2 additional open-label onabotulinumtoxinA treatments. Efficacy was assessed using the Facial Wrinkle Scale (FWS) and Facial Line Outcomes questionnaire. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 391 subjects, and the modified ITT (mITT) population (subjects with psychological impact) included 254 subjects. After 30 days, onabotulinumtoxinA significantly improved the investigator- and subject-assessed appearance of FHL severity by at least 2 FWS grades in 61.4% of ITT subjects versus 0% of placebo subjects (p < .0001). In the mITT population, 94.8% of onabotulinumtoxinA subjects and 1.7% of placebo subjects achieved investigator- and subject-assessed FWS ratings of none/mild (p = .0003). Patient-reported outcomes were consistent with FWS ratings. OnabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA 40 U distributed between the frontalis and glabellar complex was safe and effective for treatment of moderate-to-severe FHL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it