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 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.044
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