Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are pleased to present the most recent Advances in Aesthetic Scales Issue of Dermatologic Surgery, which follows several other Dermatologic Surgery special issues on new aesthetic scales. Scales are an important part of the scientific method of proving efficacy of drugs and devices in the cosmetic marketplace. The US FDA requires scientifically validated scales to be used as measurement tools to specify enrollment criteria for FDA approval studies on cosmetic interventions with drugs and devices, and to measure the outcomes of such studies, usually as rated by blinded expert evaluators, treating investigators and study subjects. Many other countries now follow FDA guidelines for drug and device approval. As such, this issue presents new scales on the Asian chin, forehead, and calves. Cosmetic ideals may differ from country to country, and scales must account for regional and cultural aesthetic preferences. For the non-Asian cosmetic dermatologist, these scales may highlight fascinating regional and cultural differences in cosmetic preferences. Also, in this issue are new scales on skin laxity or dimpling of the thighs, buttocks, and knees, which are necessary to study the outcomes of many of our newer devices that address cosmetic concerns off the face. We wish to acknowledge the scientific leadership and commitment of the authors and Merz for undertaking this important scholarly initiative to elevate the level of science in cosmetic dermatology and equip us to generate further robust clinical evidence in our field.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.008 | 0.017 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".