Adverse reactions associated with the esthetic use of soft tissue fillers and neurotoxins: a 53-year retrospective analysis of MedEffect™, Health Canada’s reporting database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This is the first study to evaluate Health Canada’s national reporting database, MedEffect™, to assess the safety and efficacy of esthetic injectables.Objective Describe adverse reactions (ARs) associated with soft tissue fillers and neurotoxins.Methods Investigators reviewed MedEffect™ for reports associated with esthetic injectables from January 1 1965 to March 31 2018. Descriptive analyses of the reports were completed, including information on reporters’, patients’, and AR characteristics.Results A total of 1459 individual reports containing 5714 ARs were evaluated. The majority (n = 5705; 99.84%) of reported ARs were related to neurotoxins and only 0.16% (n = 9) were related to soft tissue fillers. Most reports were submitted by health professionals (n = 4930; 86%), indicated that the product was ineffective (n = 2428; 42.5%) and that the result of ARs were unknown (n = 4835; 84.6%).Conclusions ARs associated with the use of neurotoxins and soft tissue fillers are underreported in Canada. More complete and representative information regarding ARs is necessary for the development and validation of treatment algorithms and management strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".