MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103570524

The efficacy of a broad-spectrum sunscreen to protect engineered human skin from tissue and DNA damage induced by solar ultraviolet exposure.

2000· article· en· W2103570524 on OpenAlexaff
Vickram Bissonauth, Régen Drouin, David L. Mitchell, Marc Rhainds, Joël Claveau, Mahmoud Rouabhia

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrimidine dimerSunburnHuman skinDNA damageErythemaUltravioletSkin cancerPhotoprotectionChemistryDNADermatologyMaterials scienceBiologyMedicineCancerBiochemistryOptoelectronicsGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sunscreens are known to protect against sunlight-induced erythema and sunburn, but their efficiency at protecting against skin cancer is still a matter of debate. Specifically, the capacity of sunscreens to prevent or reduce tissue and DNA damage has not been thoroughly investigated. The present study was undertaken to assess the ability of a chemical broad-spectrum sunscreen to protect human skin against tissue and DNA damage after solar UV radiation. Engineered human skin was generated and either treated or not with a broad-spectrum SPF 30 sunscreen and exposed to increasing doses of simulated sunlight (SSL). Immediately after irradiation, histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular quantitative analyses were performed. The unprotected irradiated engineered human skin showed significant epidermal disorganization accompanied by a complete absence of laminin deposition. The sunscreen prevented SSL-induced epidermal damage at low doses and allowed laminin deposition at almost all SSL doses tested. The frequencies of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, pyrimidine (6-4) pyrimidone photoproducts, and photooxidative lesions measured by alkaline gel electrophoresis and radioimmunoassay were significantly reduced by the sunscreen. Thus, tissue and DNA damage may provide excellent quantitative end points for assessing the photoprotective efficacy of sunscreens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207