In vivo determination of the skin surface topography and biophysical properties of human hands: Effects of sex and hand dominance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of hand dominance on the skin topography and parameters associated with skin health and aging is unknown. METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers were recruited. The following four strata were enrolled: Group 1: male, right handed; Group 2: male, left handed; Group 3: female, right handed; and Group 4: female, left handed. The differences between groups on their surface evaluation of living skin (SELS) parameters were evaluated. These variables included (a) roughness (SER); (b) smoothness (SESM); (c) scaliness (SESC); and (d) wrinkles (SEW). RESULTS: A total of twenty subjects were recruited, with five in each stratum. Significant differences between groups were found for SESC [F(7,31) = 2.742, P = .024, partial eta squared = 0.382] and SEW [F(7,31) = 3.705, P = .005, partial eta squared = 0.456]. An evaluation of the descriptive statistics revealed that males had a higher mean SESC value than females and a lower mean SEW value. Moreover, the dominant hand of both sexes had a higher mean SEW value than non-dominant hands. CONCLUSIONS: Given the evidence of sex and handedness differences in wrinkle genesis and desquamation severity, these factors should be considered in the dermatological treatment and counseling of patients.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it