OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment for Moderate to Severe Forehead Lines: A Review
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
With onabotulinumtoxinA approved for the treatment of glabellar and crow's feet lines and, most recently, for forehead lines (FHL), it is possible to simultaneously treat multiple areas of the upper face that are of high concern and treatment priority for aesthetically oriented individuals. This review aims to present key insights on the use of onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of moderate to severe FHL. METHODS: Double-blind, placebo-controlled registration trials of onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of FHL were included. Using findings from 3 such published studies, we discuss key concepts and clinical experience for the treatment of moderate to severe FHL with onabotulinumtoxinA (20 U in the frontalis and 20 U in the glabellar complex, with/without 24 U in crow's feet lines), including injection pattern, dose selection, efficacy and safety data, and considerations for patient selection. RESULTS: < 0.0001), and results were maintained through 3 cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSIONS: OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment also resulted in high patient satisfaction rates. The incidence of eyebrow and of eyelid ptosis was low, and no new safety signals were detected. OnabotulinumtoxinA is safe and effective and an appropriate option for patients with moderate to severe FHL encountered in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it