A Prospective Clinical and Instrumental Study on the Effects of a Transcutaneous Cosmeceutical Gel that is Claimed to Produce CO₂.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carboxytherapy is the therapeutic use of carbon dioxide (CO2) in its gaseous state. Since 1933, carboxytherapy has referred to either the subcutaneous injection of CO2 or percutaneous application in a warm bath. The present clinical study was performed to determine if there were any changes in the dermis after the application of a transcutaneous gel, which is claimed to produce CO2, and, if so, how these changes compared to those with CO2 injection. Ten patients received transcutaneous treatment with the gel on one side of the face and the other side without any product was used as a control. We used videocapillaroscopy with an optic probe (VCSO) to evaluate the changes in the microcirculation of the skin. VCSO was performed for the treated right and untreated left ear lobes in each patient. VCSO was performed before treatment was started (VCSO1) and after 7 days of treatment (VCSO2). A comparison of VCSO1 to VCSO2 showed an increase in the microcirculation, an increase in vertical and horizontal capillaries, and a reduction in the area of ischemia. These results are similar to those observed in other studies with CO2 injection. In conclusion, use of this transcutaneous CO2 gel produced changes in the dermis similar to those observed with subcutaneous injection of CO2.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".