Canada HARMONY Study: Improvements in Patient Satisfaction With Facial Appearance and Psychological Impact of Combined Aesthetic Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Panfacial treatment has the potential to positively impact psychosocial and emotional well-being. Objectives The Canada HARMONY study evaluated the satisfaction and psychosocial impact of comprehensive, multimodal aesthetic treatment of the face and submental area from the patient perspective. Methods Over 12 months, all patients (N = 58) sequentially received treatment with hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, onabotulinumtoxinA, and medical-grade skincare products, and eligible patients (n = 13) also received ATX-101. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline on the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Facial Appearance Scale. Secondary endpoints included the following assessments: FACE-Q Expectations of Life Change, Psychological Function, Social Function, Satisfaction with Skin, and Aging Appraisal Scales; Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS); and the Periorbital Aesthetic Appearance Questionnaire (PAAQ). Safety was monitored throughout the study. Results Baseline FACE-Q Expectations of Life Change scores indicated realistic treatment expectations. Significant improvements from baseline were observed on the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Facial Appearance, Psychological Function, Social Function, Satisfaction with Skin, and Aging Appraisal Scales (P < .0001 for all endpoints). Most patients rated “much improved” on the GAIS. The mean PAAQ total score significantly improved from baseline by 32.6 (P < .0001). Most patients reported mild-to-moderate injection-site responses, which had a mean time to resolution of <14 days. Conclusions Panfacial aesthetic treatment consisting of HA fillers, onabotulinumtoxinA, and ATX-101 improved patient-reported satisfaction, psychological function, social function, and aging appraisal across validated measures. Level of Evidence: 5 (Therapeutic)
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".