MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135328945 · doi:10.3390/molecules26051249

Probiotics in Cosmetic and Personal Care Products: Trends and Challenges

2021· review· en· W3135328945 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsPersonal careBusinessPurchasingCosmetic industrySkin careMarketingProduct (mathematics)Health careProbioticCosmeticsBiotechnologyMedicineEconomicsNursingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probiotics, defined as "live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host," are becoming increasingly popular and marketable. However, too many of the products currently labelled as probiotics fail to comply with the defining characteristics. In recent years, the cosmetic industry has increased the number of products classified as probiotics. While there are several potential applications for probiotics in personal care products, specifically for oral, skin, and intimate care, proper regulation of the labelling and marketing standards is still required to guarantee that consumers are indeed purchasing a probiotic product. This review explores the current market, regulatory aspects, and potential applications of probiotics in the personal care industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it