Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to Dr. Ersek’s question regarding the effects of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and the possibility of damage to lipid-containing peripheral nerves and resultant dysesthesias, evidence of collateral injury to peripheral nerves was not observed or reported in porcine or human studies (both of which were published in the May issue of Aesthetic Surgery Journal). Histological examination revealed intact structures in the HIFU treatment field containing extracellular lipids. Additionally, in a randomized, sham-controlled study conducted in the U.S. in 180 patients (in press) evaluating the safety and efficacy of HIFU, there were no reports of sensory alterations.1 Clinically speaking, in more than three years of commercial experience in Canada, the European Union, and elsewhere, there have been no reports of hypesthesia or parethesias with the HIFU device we described. With regard to a cannula-based technique for lipoplasty and its safety and preservation of arterial, nerve, and vein structures, Trott et al evaluated patients undergoing both suction-assisted lipoplasty (SAL) and ultrasonic lipoplasty (UAL) for postoperative sensory changes.2 In this study, both groups (SAL and UAL) developed sensory changes (hypesthesia) following a lipoplasty procedure. It was reported that on average, the SAL-treated areas improved to normal sensation by six weeks postoperatively, whereas UAL-treated areas recovered in approximately 10 weeks. The severity of hypesthesia was not correlated with larger aspiration volumes of longer UAL exposure time per site. At 10 weeks, normal sensation was resolved in 90% of UAL-treated patients and 89% of liposuction patients. Therefore, we believe that HIFU represents a novel approach to noninvasive body sculpting with a safety and efficacy profile similar to traditional liposuction procedures. Results in both porcine and human subjects demonstrated no substantive potential for long-term dysesthesias. Drs. Gadsden and Jewell are paid clinical investigators for Medicis Technologies Corporation, Bothell, WA. Dr. Jewell is also a paid consultant for Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA; an unpaid consultant for Sound Surgical Technologies LLC, Louisville, CO, Keller Medical, Inc., Stuart, FL, AorTech Medical Devices, USA, Salt Lake City, UT, New Beauty Magazine, Sandow Media, New York, NY; and receives financial support as a clinical investigator for Mentor Worldwide LLC, Santa Barbara, CA, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Calabasas, CA, and Excaliard Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Carlsbad, CA.
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 | 0.006 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 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; 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".