Optimized Aesthetic Outcomes When Treating Glabellar Lines with Botulinum Toxin Type A: GLO 3 + 2: A Precise Technique Based on Anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Good patient outcomes after treatment of the glabellar complex with botulinum toxin type A entail elimination of glabellar lines and maintenance of a natural eyebrow position. A precise injection technique that accurately targets the muscles that influence eyebrow position is required to reduce the risk of adverse aesthetic outcomes or unmasking an underlying eyelid ptosis. Here, we describe the glabellar lines optimization (GLO 3 + 2) injection anatomy technique, a precise five-point injection pattern that is based on current understanding of facial functional anatomy and which aims to minimize the risk of affecting nontargeted muscles. Injection sites above the brow or that do not target the precise location of the muscles in the glabellar complex are likely to inadvertently expose the frontalis to botulinum toxin type A and result in undesirable aesthetic outcomes. Because the frontalis is a strong determinant of aesthetic outcomes, it is important to consider the overall effects of the interactions between the eyebrow depressors and the opposing forces of the frontalis on brow outcomes in both the resting brow position and during dynamic brow movement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".