Therapeutic hyaluronidase to provide optimal aesthetic outcomes: A case report and call to action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With hyaluronic acid injectable treatments becoming increasingly popular, more patients are presenting with pre-existing hyaluronic acid creating a poor cosmetic effect, requiring subsequent dissolving with hyaluronidase. We sought to characterize the clinical features and demographics of patients receiving therapeutic hyaluronidase electively and not in the context of an adverse event. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients receiving therapeutic hyaluronidase in two aesthetic dermatology practices from 2020 to 2024. There were 35 patients, ranging in age from 23 to 74 years. Fifty-seven percent of patients sought consultation for further injectable treatments and were unaware of the negative impact of their prior hyaluronic acid. Our data highlight the necessity of considering therapeutic hyaluronidase during an aesthetic consultation. Practitioners who seek to provide patients with the most optimal, natural, and balanced cosmetic outcomes must both recognize the signs of excess or poorly placed hyaluronic acid and be comfortable in administering treatment with hyaluronidase.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".