MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sunscreen <i>in vitro</i> spectroscopy: application to UVA protection assessment and correlation with <i>in vivo</i> persistent pigment darkening

2002· article· en· W1967238360 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cosmetic Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSun protection factorIn vivoIrradiationIn vitroSunscreening AgentsChemistryMaterials scienceDermatologyPhysicsMedicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, we have described an in vitro spectroscopic method to evaluate the sunscreen products for UVA sun protection factor. The roughened PMMA plates have been used as a transparent substrate on to which the test product is spread. The UVA protection factors have been deduced from the UV-transmittance data measured in the UVA area. In order to be as close as possible to the in vivo protection factors, issued from the PPD end-point, the treated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) plates are submitted to different UV-irradiation doses, before the measurement. The correlation in vitro/in vivo is poor when the sunscreens are not irradiated. A UV dose of about 2 minimal pigmenting dose (MPD) is enough to achieve a good correlation between in vitro and in vivo data issued from the 13 tested sunscreens. These results are consistent with the fact that the photostability of sunscreens is challenged during an in vivo PPD test.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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