A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial to investigate the effect of Cynatine<sup>®</sup><scp>HNS</scp> on skin characteristics
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".