Does skin hydration influence keratinocyte biology? <i>In vivo</i> evaluation of microscopic skin changes induced by moisturizers by means of Reflectance Confocal Microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin hydration is defined as the water content of the epidermis and the dermis. In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy offers the opportunity to determine in vivo the kinetics of the skin after the application of topical products. OBJECTIVE: To define confocal features associated with dry skin and assess the microscopic effects of different moisturizers. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were enrolled for the study. Two different formulations were tested: petrolatum and a commercially available emulsion. Measurements were performed from baseline to 3 h after removal of the occlusion at regular time points. Nine confocal features were assessed: furrows' size, overall interkeratinocyte reflectance, furrows' morphology, scales, skin surface irregularity, non-rimmed dermal papillae, exocytosis, dermal inflammation and collagen type. Furrows' size and interkeratinocyte reflectance were also quantitated using a digital analysis. Stratum corneum capacitance was recorded. RESULTS: At baseline, RCM showed the presence of micro-scales and high skin surface irregularity score. After the application of topical products, the scale score decreased significantly; Furrow's size and Digital Furrow's Size had a marked and directly correlated decrement. Furrow's morphology and Epidermal Irregularity scores decreased from baseline to 30 min, the latter reaching a plateau in product application areas. Interestingly, interkeratinocyte reflectance progressively increased with the application of the topical products, while remained stable in the control area, confirmed by Digital Interkeratinocytes reflectance quantitation. CONCLUSION: RCM revealed that the changes involve the skin surface by reducing the micro-scales and epidermal irregularity. Even more interestingly, RCM showed that higher interkeratinocytes' brightness is seen for moisturizer, but not for the control area. This RCM finding could be linked to keratinocyte membrane protein exposure and/or substance release in the interkeratinocytic space. To sum up, RCM represents a useful imaging tool to analyze the morphologic changes at different time points following the application of topical products.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".