Bridging the Gap: Sustained Treatment Effect of Glabellar Lines With Twice-A-Year Treatment With DaxibotulinumtoxinA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To achieve natural-looking outcomes when treating dynamic lines with botulinum toxin (BoNT), retreatment must be timed such that the patient maintains a relatively constant aesthetic outcome. Although first-generation BoNT products require retreatment with 3- to 4-month frequency to avoid discontinuous correction, the average patient returns for treatment every 6 months, when these toxins have generally fully worn off. OBJECTIVE: To discuss the number of days a typical patient treated with daxibotulinumtoxinA for injection (DAXI) or legacy BoNT products will spend undertreated or uncorrected in a given calendar year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Median time for maintaining glabellar lines in the "none" or "mild" severity range was compared for approved doses of onabotulinumtoxinA (ONA; 120 days) and DAXI (168 days). RESULTS: The average patient treated with 40U of DAXI every 6 months can expect to be uncorrected (with "moderate" or "severe" glabellar lines) for 14.5 days between visits compared with 61.5 days for 20U of ONA. CONCLUSION: An extended duration BoNT product can be expected to create greater consistency in aesthetic outcome and minimize the discontinuous correction commonly seen with first-generation BoNT products for patients treated twice a year, without requiring a change in patient behavior regarding visit frequency.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".