Stability, clinical efficacy, and antioxidant properties of Honeybush extracts in semi-solid formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Honeybush extracts (Cyclopia spp.) can be incorporated into skin care products to treat conditions such as skin dryness and can function as an anti-oxidant. OBJECTIVE: To formulate Honeybush formulations and test it for antioxidant activity, skin penetration, and skin hydrating effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-solid formulations containing either Cyclopia maculata (2%) or Cyclopia genistoides (2%) underwent accelerated stability studies. Membrane release studies, Franz cell skin diffusion and tape stripping studies were performed. Antioxidant potential was determined with the 2-thiobarbituric acid-assay and clinical efficacy studies were performed to determine the formulations' effect on skin hydration, scaliness, and smoothness after 2 weeks of treatment on the volar forearm. RESULTS: The formulations were unstable over 3 months. Membrane release, skin diffusion studies, and tape stripping showed that both formulations had inconclusive results due to extremely low concentrations mangiferin and hesperidin present in the Franz cell receptor compartments, stratum corneum-epidermis, and epidermis-dermis layers of the skin. Honeybush extracts showed antioxidant activity with concentrations above 0.6250 mg/ml when compared to the toxin; whereas mangiferin and hesperidin did not show any antioxidant activity on their own. The semisolid formulations showed the potential to emit their own antioxidant activity. Both formulations improved skin smoothness, although they did not improve skin hydration compared to the placebos. C. maculata reduced the skin scaliness to a larger extent than the placebos and C. genistoides. CONCLUSION: Honeybush formulations did not penetrate the skin but did, however, show antioxidant activity and the potential to be used to improve skin scaliness and smoothness.
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) | 0.001 | 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".