Efficacy and Safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Platysma Prominence: A Randomized Phase 2 Dose-Ranging Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With aging, repetitive contraction of the platysma leads to an increase in platysma prominence (PP), characterized by the accentuation of vertical neck bands and blunting of the jawline contour. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, phase 2 study evaluated onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in adults with moderate to severe PP. Participants were randomized to receive 1 treatment of onabotulinumtoxinA low dose (LD), onabotulinumtoxinA high dose (HD), or placebo, and were followed up for 4 months. Efficacy end points were achievement of a 1 grade or greater improvement on both the left and right sides at day 14 at maximum contraction as assessed by the investigator (primary) or by participants (secondary) using validated scales. Safety was evaluated throughout. RESULTS: Participants in the modified intent-to-treat population ( n = 164) had a mean age of 50 years; 95.1% were women and 93.9% were White. The primary end point was met for both onabotulinumtoxinA groups, with investigator-assessed 1 grade or greater improvement in 77.8% (LD) and 88.2% (HD) versus 12.0% (placebo) of participants on day 14 ( P < 0.0001 versus placebo). Based on participant self-assessment, 75.9% (LD) and 88.2% (HD) versus 18.0% (placebo) achieved 1 grade or greater improvement on day 14 ( P < 0.0001 versus placebo). Most treatment-related adverse events were procedure-related, transient, and mild in severity. The most frequent onabotulinumtoxinA-related adverse event was neck muscle weakness, reported in the HD group. CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA was effective in improving the appearance of PP based on both investigators' and participants' ratings. Treatment was well tolerated. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".