A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial to investigate the effect of Cynatine<sup>®</sup><scp>HNS</scp> on skin characteristics
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
OBJECTIVE: A new, novel product, Cynatine(®) HNS was evaluated for its effects as a supplement for improving various aspects of skin in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 50 females were included and randomized into two groups. The active group (n = 25) received two capsules totalling of Cynatine(®) HNS, comprised of Cynatine(®) brand keratin (500 mg) plus vitamins and minerals, per day, and the placebo group (n = 25) received two identical capsules of maltodextrin per day for 90 days. End points for skin moisture, skin elasticity, wrinkle reduction, skin compactness and skin appearance were measured. RESULTS: The results show that subjects taking Cynatine(®) HNS showed statistically significant improvements in their skin when compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Cynatine(®) HNS is an effective supplement for improving skin in 90 days or less.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it