MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409523329 · doi:10.1093/asj/sjaf063

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Glabellar Line Improvement and Satisfaction With the RelabotulinumtoxinA Ready-to-Use Liquid Formulation: Data From the Phase 3 READY-1 Trial

2025· article· en· W4409523329 on OpenAlexaff
Michael H. Gold, Lisa Donofrio, Sachin M. Shridharani, Amir Moradi, Brian S. Biesman, Melissa Chiang, Rosalyn George, Kristel D. Polder, Nowell Solish, Rob Schwarcz, Andrej Berg, Felipe Weinberg, Eva Axén

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Surgery Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGalderma
KeywordsMedicinePatient satisfactionSubject (documents)Line (geometry)SurgeryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: RelabotulinumtoxinA (relaBoNT-A; Relfydess, Galderma, Uppsala, Sweden) is a novel, ready-to-use liquid form of botulinum toxin A, created using PEARL technology to produce a highly effective, complex-free formulation. OBJECTIVES: This study reports the patient-assessed effectiveness and satisfaction outcomes from the relaBoNT-A Phase 3 READY-1 study. METHODS: Adults with moderate-to-severe glabellar lines were randomized 3:1 to receive relaBoNT-A (50 U) or placebo in a 6-month, double-blind, multicenter study. Patient-reported endpoints at maximum frown included ≥1 grade improvement on the glabellar line subject live assessment (GL-SLA) scale from baseline and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) score. Satisfaction and well-being investigations used the Facial Lines Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (FLTSQ), Natural Expressions Questionnaire, and FACE-Q Psychological Function Questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 233 adults received relaBoNT-A and 74 received placebo. RelaBoNT-A responder rates for ≥1-grade GL-SLA improvement from baseline at Day 7 and Months 1, 3, and 6 were 97.2%, 97.7%, 90.0%, and 71.0%, respectively, vs 18.9%, 26.8%, 27.5%, and 22.4% with placebo (P < .001). GAIS responder rates were 74.3% to 98.1% (relaBoNT-A) and 9.0% to 16.2% (placebo). Posttreatment FLTSQ Rasch-transformed scores were higher with relaBoNT-A (≥62.5) than placebo (≤49.8) for the Appearance Module and Treatment Satisfaction Module (relaBoNT-A: ≥83.0; placebo: ≤36.8). RelaBoNT-A-treated patients reported looking natural (≥83.3%) and feeling confident when making facial expressions (≥75.7%). Mean change in FACE-Q well-being score was higher with relaBoNT-A (11.0-13.7) vs placebo (0.6-4.5). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with moderate-to-severe glabellar lines receiving a single relaBoNT-A treatment reported significant improvements in glabellar line severity throughout the 6-month study period. RelaBoNT-A provided natural looking results, high satisfaction, and psychological well-being improvements.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAesthetic Surgery JournalSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207