MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987799490 · doi:10.2310/6620.2004.04006

A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial Comparing Extra Virgin Coconut Oil with Mineral Oil as a Moisturizer for Mild to Moderate Xerosis

2004· article· en· W1987799490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Liza C. Agero, Vermen M. Verallo‐Rowell

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCoconut Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoisturizerTransepidermal water lossMedicineCoconut oilDry skinDrynessRandomized controlled trialDermatologyAntisepticCocos nuciferaFood scienceSurgeryChemistryStratum corneum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Xerosis is a common skin condition (1) characterized by dry, rough, scaly, and itchy skin, (2) associated with a defect in skin barrier function, and (3) treated with moisturizers. People in the tropics have effectively used coconut oil as a traditional moisturizer for centuries. Recently, the oil also has been shown to have skin antiseptic effects. A moisturizer with antiseptic effects has value, but there are no clinical studies to document the efficacy and safety of coconut oil as a skin moisturizer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effectivity and safety of virgin coconut oil compared with mineral oil as a therapeutic moisturizer for mild to moderate xerosis. METHODS: A randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial was conducted on mild to moderate xerosis in 34 patients with negative patch-test reactions to the test products. These patients were randomized to apply either coconut oil or mineral oil on the legs twice a day for 2 weeks. Quantitative outcome parameters for effectivity were measured at baseline and on each visit with a Corneometer CM825 to measure skin hydration and a Sebumeter SM 810 to measure skin lipids. For safety, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) was measured with a Tewameter TM210, and skin surface hydrogen ion concentration (pH) was measured with a Skin pH Meter PH900. Patients and the investigator separately evaluated, at baseline and at each weekly visit, skin symptoms of dryness, scaling, roughness, and pruritus by using a visual analogue scale and grading of xerosis. RESULTS: Coconut oil and mineral oil have comparable effects. Both oils showed effectivity through significant improvement in skin hydration and increase in skin surface lipid levels. Safety was demonstrated through no significant difference in TEWL and skin pH. Subjective grading of xerosis by the investigators and visual analogue scales used by the patients showed a general trend toward better (though not statistically evident) improvement with coconut oil than with mineral oil. Safety for both was further demonstrated by negative patch-test results prior to the study and by the absence of adverse reactions during the study. CONCLUSION: Coconut oil is as effective and safe as mineral oil when used as a moisturizer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations113
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicCoconut Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207