<p>A Split-Face Study Assessing the Clinical Benefit, Tolerability and Subject Satisfaction of a Dermocosmetic in Subjects with Rosacea Associated with Erythema and Sensitive Skin</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of M89 in patients with rosacea associated with erythema and sensitive skin. METHODS: Intra-individual study in a split-face design comparing after 30 days M89 twice daily and usual skin care in 20 adult subjects with rosacea and sensitive skin. M89 contains 89% Vichy volcanic mineralizing water (VVMW) and 0.4% hyaluronic acid. It is hypoallergenic and contains no perfume and this convenes in rosacea. Contained minerals reinforce the natural defences of the skin in restoring the natural skin barrier, stimulating antioxidant activity and reducing inflammation, commonly observed in subjects with rosacea. Clinical evaluations included assessment of erythema, desquamation, papules and pustules, skin tightness, dryness, burning sensation, itching, stinging and stinging test as well as local tolerability. Instrumental evaluations included skin hydration and TEWL. Subject satisfaction was assessed at Days 15 and 30. Demodex density was assessed at Day 30. RESULTS: A significant superiority of M89 over the standard skin care was observed for erythema, skin tightness and dryness (all P≤0.05) as early as Day 15, the skin stinging test was significantly in favour of M89 (P<0.05 at Day 15 and P<0.01 at Day 30) and for skin hydration (P<0.0001) at Day 15 and 30 with no difference in mean Demodex density between M89 and usual skin care after 30 days. Tolerance was excellent and subject satisfaction very high. CONCLUSION: Study results concerning M89 are encouraging for its use either alone or as an adjuvant daily skin care to topical medication in patients with persistent centrofacial erythema of rosacea with no more than 3 papules and pustules.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".