An open-label, pilot study to assess the effectiveness and safety of hyaluronic acid gel in the restoration of soft tissue fullness of the lips.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been few systematic investigations of the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of aesthetic lip augmentation using hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effectiveness of small gel particle hyaluronic acid filler (Restylane Injectable Gel [SGP-HA]; Medicis Aesthetics Inc., Scottsdale, AZ) in lip augmentation using the Medicis Lip Fullness Scale (MLFS). Assess subjective improvement in lip appearance using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: Investigators treated 21 adults. The primary efficacy endpoint was an increase in lip fullness at least one grade on MLFS at eight weeks post-treatment. Adverse events were reported using patient diaries. RESULTS: Sixteen of 18 evaluable subjects (89%) had an improvement at least one grade on MLFS in both lips. MLFS and GAIS scores were consistent, suggesting clinically significant aesthetic improvement. Adverse effects were transient and mostly mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: Lip augmentation with SGP-HA was well tolerated and resulted in clinically meaningful increases in lip fullness.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".