The Layered Anatomy of the Nose: An Ultrasound-Based Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of soft tissue filler procedures in the nasal region has been reported. Concomitant with demand, the number of complications has risen due to the difficulty in administering filler in a region where soft tissue layering is complex. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to describe the layered soft tissue arrangement of the nose as it relates to the underlying arterial vasculature and to define safer zones for nasal filler enhancement. METHODS: A total of 60 (28 males and 32 females) study participants were investigated with respect to their layered anatomy in the midline of the nose utilizing ultrasound imaging. The presence and extent of the layered arrangement was examined as well as the depth of the arterial vasculature. RESULTS: In the mid-nasal dorsum, a 5-layer arrangement was observed in 100% (n = 60) of all investigated cases, whereas it was found to be absent in the nasal radix and tip. The 5-layer arrangement showed an average extent of 26.7% to 67.5% in relation to nasal length. The nasal arteries coursed superficially in 91.7% of all cases in the nasal radix, in 80% in the mid-nasal dorsum, and in 98.3% in the nasal tip. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue filler administration in the nose carries the highest risk for irreversible vision loss compared with any other facial region. The safety of soft tissue filler rhinoplasty procedures is enhanced by knowledge of the layered anatomy of the nose, the location and depth of the major nasal vasculature, and employment of maneuvers to decrease the risk of blindness.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".