Consensus Statements on Managing Aesthetic Needs in Prescription Medication‐Driven Weight Loss Patients: An International, Multidisciplinary Delphi Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To handle the increasing influx of prescription medication-driven weight loss (mdWL) patients in aesthetic practices, clinicians must be aligned on identifying discerning factors and strategies for managing this unique patient population. OBJECTIVES: (1) Define the mdWL patient; (2) describe the mdWL patient's aesthetic expectations; (3) determine the most relevant methods of assessing mdWL patients in clinical practice; (4) determine the effects of mdWL on specific facial tissue layers; (5) identify important treatment considerations for the mdWL patient; and (6) identify the temporal sequencing of non-surgical options in the mdWL patient. METHODS: Preparatory research included patient interviews, market research, and a systematic literature review. Following this, an international, multidisciplinary three-round Delphi study was conducted to collect information on practice setting, physician and patient demographics, and previous experience, and for panelists to vote on consensus statements regarding managing mdWL patients in aesthetics. RESULTS: mdWL is best defined by the percent of BMI lost within ≤ 6 months. Three-dimensional volumetric analysis is an effective quantitative assessment, while photo-numeric scales and patient-reported outcome measures are relevant qualitative measures. Tissue layers most affected by mdWL include the skin and superficial and deep fat pads. A major concern for aesthetic mdWL patients seeking aesthetic treatments is the fear of appearing to have gained weight following treatments, while for physicians it is ensuring their mdWL patients look healthy and natural. The key selection and critical timing of aesthetic treatments throughout the mdWL journey are described. CONCLUSIONS: The first global consensus-based guidelines for understanding and managing the aesthetic needs of mdWL patients are presented.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it