Single application of lamellar moisturizers provides significantly increased hydration of the stratum corneum for up to 24 hours in a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some moisturizing formulations can help restore and maintain the barrier function of the skin. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to assess the hydration potential of three lamellar moisturizers relative to a control (nonlamellar) moisturizer. METHODS: Healthy adults aged 18 to 65 years with self-reported sensitive skin, dry or very dry skin and Corneometry values of ≤40 a.u. on the lower legs, entered this randomized, evaluator-blind study. Products A and B together with a control product (Control X) were applied to one leg, while Product C and Control Y were applied to the other leg; with an untreated control site in both cases. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in Corneometer assessments at 24 hours (Products A and B) or 12 hours (Product C) postapplication. RESULTS: At all timepoints (n = 30), Products A and B showed higher mean Corneometer readings compared to baseline and changes from baseline were statistically significant when compared to untreated sites. Higher mean readings relative to baseline were seen at sites treated with Control X (smaller magnitude than Product A and B) and with Product C. These changes were significant compared to the untreated site at 30 minutes and 2 hours (Control X), and at 30 minutes and 12 hours (Product C). Additionally, Control Y increased significantly at 12 hours. CONCLUSION: A single application of a lamellar moisturizer significantly increased hydration of the stratum corneum for up to 24 hours (Products A and B) or 12 hours (Product C).
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".