The use of chemical probes to assess the facial reactivity of women, comparing their self-perception of sensitive skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensitive skin is a term that has a very distinct meaning to each individual, but over a large group the definition may vary considerably. In this study approximately 1000 Caucasian females (ages 18 to 65) in five geographically diverse locations (Arizona, Ohio, New Jersey, Manitoba, and Florida) were recruited to answer a questionnaire that specifically asked, Do you have sensitive skin? and also documented dermatological parameters and reactions to products. Three chemical probes were applied to each volunteer on separate visits to the laboratory: 10% aqueous lactic acid, 10% balsam of Peru, and 10:90 chloroform/ methanol. Burning/stinging responses were recorded each minute for up to ten minutes. The endpoints for analysis were (a) time in minutes for perceived burning/stinging and (b) maximum score achieved. The study was undertaken to compare individuals who classified themselves on a written questionnaire as having sensitive skin with a group of individuals self-classified as having non-sensitive skin. The response parameters for each of the chemical probes were correlated with the subject's self-assessment of sensitive skin condition, skin medical history, and tendencies for personal care product selection. With each of the chemical probes, a statistically significant difference was found between the responsiveness of the self-assessed sensitive skin and non-sensitive skin groups for the parameters measured (time to perceived burning/stinging and maximum score achieved). However, there were a large number of subjects self-perceived as sensitive who did not respond to any of the chemical probes, while others self-perceived as non-sensitive responded strongly. Analysis of demographic and response data did not identify any specific profile of responders and non-responders. These results indicate that individual perception of sensitive skin by self-assessment may not always conform to the functional determination of sensitivity to chemical probes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".