MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W78103601

Lip tenting: a simple technique for better lip enhancement.

2010· article· en· W78103601 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Braun, Susan Braun, Tom van Eijk

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsVancouver Biotech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSimple (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lip augmentation is practiced with increasing frequency by cosmetic practitioners using a variety of different filling substances. Often the result is less than optimal, with a duckbill lip that only serves to discourage other patients from asking for lip enhancement. The authors will present a simple technique to enhance or augment the lip by injecting almost vertically from the white roll, rather than injecting parallel to the lip contour. This fashion of lip enhancement is called "lip tenting." It is a simple way to have optimal control over both shape and volume in enhancement, especially in patients with asymmetrical lips, lip pockets and in those who require correction from previous suboptimal lip augmentation. Moreover, the aesthetic result obtained by this technique is a more natural appearance of the lip than frequently achieved using conventional methods.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207