Comparison of topical antiaging creams in the management of lateral canthal lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study compared an antiaging treatment with two currently marketed cosmetic antiaging products for the treatment of lateral canthal lines ("crow's feet"). Methods Healthy female volunteers (72) aged of 54.6 years (mean) having fine‐to‐moderate wrinkles in the lateral canthal areas were randomized to one of three treatments applied daily over 28 days: Group A (Purgenesis™ Day Cream, Purgenesis™ Eye Cream, and Purgenesis™ Night Cream); Group B (Prevage® Eye Lotion, Prevage® Day Cream, and Prevage® Night Cream); or Group C (La Mer® Eye Balm, Crème de La Mer®, and La Mer® Night Cream). The effects on anti‐wrinkle properties and for sensory attributes and general performance were evaluated on Days 1, 7, and 28. Results Skin hydration improved significantly at all time points in Groups A and B, and at Day 28 in Group C. Group A patients experienced significant improvements in measured skin elasticity parameters at Day 28; extensibility and maximum amplitude were significantly better at Day 28 in Groups B and C. Benefits were also seen in profilometric parameters with statistical significance only in Group A Volunteer tolerance was good with all three treatments, although moderate and high levels of adverse events were numerically higher in Group B than in Groups A or C, and levels of slight discomfort were significantly more prevalent in Group B. Conclusion The Purgenesis™ antiaging treatment significantly improved skin hydration, elasticity, and profilometry parameters during a 28‐day study. This therapy was found to be well tolerated and effective in countering the cutaneous signs of aging.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".