Vichy mineralizing water with hyaluronic acid is effective and well tolerated as an adjunct to the management of various dermatoses and after esthetic procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: M89, containing 89% of Vichy mineralizing water and hyaluronic acid, has been developed to reinforce the skin barrier and to improve skin quality. AIM: To assess efficacy and tolerability of M89. METHOD: Observational survey of subjects with facial dermatoses or after esthetic procedures. M89 served as adjunct to conventional therapy. Clinician assessments of erythema, desquamation, irritation and patient-reported dryness, burning, itching, and stinging/tingling were conducted at baseline and 4 weeks. At 1 week and 4 weeks, patient assessed tolerance and satisfaction with M89. RESULTS: A total of 1630 subjects participated; 92.5% were females. Mean age was 41.1 ± 11.3 years. Dermatological indications accounted for 32.5%, procedures for 67.5%. At 4 weeks, in subjects with dermatoses, erythema had resolved or improved in 68.0%, desquamation in 83.4%, and irritation in 93.3%. Dryness, burning, itching, and stinging/tingling scores had decreased by 63.8%, 81.8%, 70.9%, and 85.2%, respectively (all P ≤ .0001); 75.7% considered that their skin was sufficiently hydrated. In the procedure group, erythema had resolved or improved in 72.5%, desquamation in 75.2%, and irritation in 88.1%. Dryness, burning, itching, and stinging/tingling scores had decreased by 62.1%, 78.8%, 70.0%, and 84.2%, respectively (all P ≤ .0001); 74.1% considered that their skin was sufficiently hydrated. Almost all subjects reported soothed skin and satisfaction with product texture. Subject and investigator satisfaction was very high. CONCLUSION: M89 significantly improves skin signs and symptoms after 4 weeks of continued use with no tolerance issues in subjects with dermatological indications. Moreover, subjects who have had recently undergone esthetic procedures M89 allowed a satisfying skin recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".