Understanding Platysma Muscle Contraction Pattern and Its Relationship to Platysmal Banding: A Real-Time Ultrasound Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Addressing neck contouring with surgical and nonsurgical aesthetic procedures includes understanding the origin of platysmal banding. A theory was postulated to explain this phenomenon by isometric vs isotonic muscular contraction patterns. However, no scientific proof had been provided to date for its correctness. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to confirm the correctness of the platysmal banding theory based on isometric vs isotonic muscular contractions. METHODS: Eighty platysma muscles from 40 volunteers (15 males and 25 females) were investigated (mean age 41.8; SD 15.2 years; mean BMI of 22.2; SD 2.3 kg/m2). Real-time ultrasound imaging was utilized to measure the increase in local muscle thickness inside and outside of a platysmal band as well as platysma mobility. RESULTS: Within a platysmal band, the local thickness of the muscle increases during muscular contractions by 0.33 mm (37.9%; P < .001). Outside of a platysmal band the thickness of the platysma muscle decreased by 0.13 mm (20.3%; P < .001). It was identified that within a platysmal band no gliding was detectable, whereas outside of a band an average muscle gliding of 2.76 mm was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the correctness of the isometric vs isotonic platysma muscle contraction pattern theory: isotonic muscle contraction (gliding without increase in tension and therefore in muscle thickness) vs isometric muscle contraction (no gliding but increase in tension and therefore in muscle thickness). These 2 types of contraction patterns occur within the platysma simultaneously and are an indicator for zones of adhesion in the neck to guide surgical and nonsurgical aesthetic procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".