MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2378632250 · doi:10.2147/ccid.s100697

A randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blinded, split-faced clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of KLOX-001 gel formulation with KLOX light-emitting diode light on facial rejuvenation

2016· article· en· W2378632250 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Fauverghe, Steven Bernstein, Brian M. Kinney, Nicolò Scuderi, S. Rastogi, John S. Sampalis, Andreas Nikolis

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsGDI Integrated Facility Services (Canada)Victoria ParkKlox Technologies (Canada)McGill University Health CentreUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityPlaceboFacial rejuvenationRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectWrinkleSurgeryClinical trialRejuvenationDermatologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Many treatment modalities exist to counteract the effects of cutaneous aging. Ablative methods have been the mainstay for nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. In recent years, nonablative techniques have been developed with the aim of achieving facial rejuvenation without epidermal damage. Light-emitting diode (LED) photorejuvenation is a novel nonablative technique that induces collagen synthesis through biophotomodulatory pathways. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled, split-faced clinical trial was designed. Thirty-two patients were enrolled for a 12-week study. Patients were randomized into one of four groups: Group A, treatment with KLOX-001 gel formulation and white LED (placebo) light; Group B, treatment with a placebo/base gel (no active chromophore) formulation and KLOX LED light; Group C, treatment with KLOX-001 gel formulation and KLOX LED light; and Group D, treatment with the standard skin rejuvenating treatment (0.1% retinol-based cream). Patients received treatment at weeks 0, 1, 2, and 3, and returned to the clinic at weeks 4, 8, and 12 for clinical assessments performed by an independent, blinded committee of physicians using subjective clinician assessment scales. Tolerability, adverse outcomes, and patient satisfaction were also assessed. RESULTS: Analysis demonstrated that the KLOX LED light with KLOX placebo/base gel and the KLOX LED light + KLOX-001 gel formulation groups were superior to standard of care and KLOX-001 gel formulation with placebo light on subjective clinical assessment and multiple wrinkle scales, with statistically significant results obtained for brow positioning, perioral wrinkling, and total wrinkle score. CONCLUSION: The study results show that KLOX LED light with KLOX-001 gel formulation and KLOX LED light with KLOX placebo/base gel are effective, safe, well-tolerated, and painless treatment modalities for skin rejuvenation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cosmetic and Investigational DermatologySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207