A Dermocosmetic Significantly Reduces the Frequency and Intensity of Facial Skin Intolerability and Sensitivity in Subjects with Skin Intolerant to Skin Care Products and Sensitive Skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Intolerance to dermocosmetics is frequent in subjects with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). A dermocosmetic (DC) was developed to restore the natural skin barrier, to reduce skin inflammation and to improve sensitive skin in ACD. Objective: To assess the benefit of a DC in subjects with an allergic background and intolerance to cosmetic care, or with sensitive skin. Materials and Methods: In this open-label study, 107 subjects above 16 years of age applied DC on the face twice a day for 28 days. Assessments at Days 0, 14 and 28, included skin sensitivity, stinging test, local tolerance, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration, inflammatory biomarkers (IL-1α, IL-1RA, PGE2) using tape stripping and subject satisfaction. Results: 88% were women and mean age was 42.0±15.0 years. Skin sensitivity at inclusion scored 5.9±0.35; 46% had ACD, 95% skin irritation, 92% sensitive skin and 88% intolerance to cosmetics. A significant (p<0.0001) 85% decrease of frequency and intensity of the composite score was observed at both endpoints. Stinging scores significantly (p<0.0001) decreased from 3.9 at baseline to 2.4 at Day 14 and 1.4 at Day 28; 77% and 81% of subjects reported improved skin reactivity at Day 14 and Day 28, respectively. Similar improvements were noted in the frequency and intensity of irritation, erythema, stinging, burning and discomfort. TEWL, skin hydration and inflammatory biomarker levels significantly (p<0.0001) improved. Overall subject satisfaction (85%) and tolerance (investigators: 99%, subjects: 97%) were high. Conclusion: DC significantly reduced the frequency and intensity of facial skin intolerability and sensitivity in subjects with skin intolerant to skin care products. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT05487937.
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) | 0.002 | 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".