The effect of blepharoplasty or blepharoplasty combined with ptosis or eyebrow surgery to quality of life and use of medication related to headache or eyelid skin disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of blepharoplasty, ptosis or eyebrow surgery to quality of life and use of medication related to headache or eyelid skin disease.Methods A longitudinal, prospective study including 90 consecutive patients who underwent blepharoplasty, ptosis, eyebrow or combined surgery. The quality of life related to headache was evaluated by HIT6™ and to eyelid skin disease by Skindex-Mini SDM. Use of medication was measured by number of days per week medication was used for headache or eyelid skin disease.Results Preoperatively 46 (51%) had headache, 4 (4%) eyelid skin and 2 (2%) headache and eyelid skin symptoms. The median HIT-6 difference was −21 (range –36–0; p < .0001) and the median SDM difference was −13 (range = –15 to –1; p = .036). The median difference in medication days/week related to headache was −1 (range −4–0; p < .0001) and to eyelid skin disease −1.5 (range –3 to –1; p = .034).Conclusions This study shows that after upper eyelid blepharoplasty, ptosis or brow ptosis surgery, headache or eyelid skin disease-related quality of life measures are significantly improved, and the use of headache or eyelid skin-related medication is significantly less.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".