Study of the Stratum corneum Barrier Function by Transepidermal Water Loss Measurements: Comparison between Two Commercial Instruments: Evaporimeter <sup>®</sup> and Tewameter <sup>®</sup>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement of transepidermal water loss (TEWL) is an important noninvasive method in order to assess the barrier function of the stratum corneum. As a consequence, TEWL has been found to be a very useful technique for studying skin irritation induced by various physical and chemical effects. Exposure of the skin to chemicals (detergents) and physical conditions (occlusion and stripping) generally results in an increase of TEWL. Until recently the only commercially available TEWL instrument was the Evaporimeter developed by ServoMed (Sweden). The instrument is based on the open chamber system with two humidity and temperature sensors which measure the water evaporation gradient at the surface of the skin. Recently a new commercially available instrument based on the same physical principle of measurement was developed by Courage and Khazaka (Tewameter, FRG). Our aim in this study has been to compare the measuring capacities of both instruments. The accuracy, sensitivity, variability and reproducibility of both instruments were compared in vivo under identical conditions on normal skin and skin damaged by external conditions. The influence of external and environmental factors such as air and probe temperature, relative humidity, air turbulence and pressure of application was evaluated for both instruments. Finally, the two instruments were compared in practice when following the increase in TEWL of the skin after stripping, occlusion and exposure to irritant household detergents. A very good correlation (r = +0.97) was found between the results of the two instruments over a wide range of TEWL values.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it