Using Skin Models to Assess the Effects of a Protection Cream on Skin Barrier Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a basic necessity to understand the mechanisms of the protective effects of emulsions. This would promote the development of protective cosmetics and therefore improve the prevention and treatment of occupational skin diseases. However, for such studies, no reliable skin model is available. OBJECTIVE: An in vitro skin model test was developed to evaluate the protective mechanism of cosmetic ingredients. METHODS: The efficacy of three products was assessed by an in vivo test (Repetitive Occlusive Irritation Test) and then 3-dimensional skin model tests were carried out. RESULTS: In vivo test results demonstrate that the best protection against sodium dodecyl sulphate is offered by a multiple emulsion. In the case of a skin model test, sodium dodecyl sulphate led to cell damage, an increase in pro-inflammatory markers and some barrier lipids. The multiple emulsion increased the content of skin lipids, without inducing irritation or cell death. CONCLUSION: Skin models react similarly to sodium dodecyl sulphate compared to human skin and therefore they are suitable to study barrier repair after sodium dodecyl sulphate damage. It is likely that the superior protective effect of the multiple emulsion in vivo is based on the increased amount of skin barrier lipids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".