MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Buffering capacity of human skin layers: <i>in vitro</i>

2011· article· en· W2103095051 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSkin Research and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAdvancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStratum corneumChemistryDermisSodium hydroxideHydrochloric acidTransepidermal water lossHuman skinEpidermis (zoology)SodiumIn vitroChromatographyDermatologyBiochemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryMedicineAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The skin possesses buffering capacity to resist acidic/alkaline aggression. Skin components contribute differently to this buffering capacity. This study investigates buffering capacity in three skin layers: intact stratum corneum (SC), epidermis and dermis. METHODS: Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) solutions at 0.025, 0.05 and 0.1 N were applied to skin (3.18 μL/cm(2)). After 30 min, the skin was washed with 1 mL de-ionized water. TEWL and pH measurements were conducted at baseline (before contact with acid or base), 0, 10 and 30 min post exposure, and continued at 0, 10 and 30 min post washing. RESULTS: Data indicate that immediately following acid or base exposures, the dermis demonstrates the highest buffering capacity, while with time, intact stratum corneum predominates. CONCLUSION: These findings potentiate advanced understanding of skin's buffering capacity as related to dermatopharmacology and dermatotoxicology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.197 · 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