Turn Your AART into a HIT Using a Complete Range of Aesthetic Injectables: Methodology for Combining Products to Maximise Patient Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Optimizing outcomes of aesthetic treatments with injectable products usually requires a consideration of the entire face to ensure balance, along with combination treatments that align with the patient's goals. To help injectors, a method of assessing the patient and developing an individualized, holistic treatment plan was developed. This methodology is termed Assessment, Anatomy, Range, and Treatment (AART™) and Holistic Individualized Treatments (HITs™). This article aims to describe and evaluate the novel and systematic AART-HIT™ methodology. Methods: The AART-HIT™ methodology, including its associated diagnostic tool the Facial Assessment Scale (FAS™), were developed to aid injectors in completing a patient assessment in which the entire face is evaluated, the relevant anatomy is considered, the science behind the available range of products is understood, and the treatment plan is individualised for the patient. Specifically, the HITs™ are methodologic tools for practitioners to perform a standardized, full facial assessment and to create an individualized treatment approach to holistically address a patient's aesthetic concerns. The use of this methodology in clinical practice was assessed via a survey, deployed to twenty-eight clinicians. Results: Over 85% of participants agreed that the AART-HIT™ methodology was adequate for their needs. Additionally, 100% of participants agreed that the temporal sequencing of HITs™ and the FAS™ diagnostic tool was useful in clinical practice. Furthermore, over 70% of participants agreed that the anatomical locations identified in each HIT™ were sufficient, while over 80% responded that the HITs™ adequately represented the range of products. Finally, over 85% of participants agreed that the HITs™ covered different ethnic skin types and various patient ages and, over 80% of participants responded that they would not add additional elements to any of the 5 HITs™. Conclusion: The AART-HIT™ methodology, including the FAS™ were comprehensive enough for clinical use in providing a personalised treatment plan for individual patients.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".