Efficacy and Safety of a Cosmetic Formulation Containing Arginine Glutamate in Patients with Burn Scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with burn scars often suffer from a ‘vicious cycle’ in which their skin becomes dry and pruritus. This greatly reduces patients' quality of life, but there is no well-known mechanism yet, and the development of drugs for effective treatment is necessary. Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of cosmetic formulation containing arginine glutamate ion pair (named as RE:pair) on epidermal barrier function and reducing pruritus. Materials and Methods: A total of 20 patients [15 male and 5 female; average age 48.35 ± 13.13 years] participated in evaluating the effectiveness of using the RE:pair formula topically twice daily for up to 4 weeks after burn pruritus. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for itching and pain, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) evaluation, and the patient’s overall satisfaction. Results: This formula was well-tolerated, with significant relief of NRS for itching and pain score after 2nd weeks and 4th weeks of application (p < 0.05). The itching score was high in some patients, and overall, it decreased significantly after 4 weeks compared to before application. Also, the personal pain score decreased after 4th weeks. Overall TEWL showed 35 % improvement after 4th week, and 52 % improvement was confirmed in arms and 19 % in legs. The overall improvement effect of skin hydration was also 45 % (p = 0.0012), and the improvement effect was 40 % (p = 0.0371) in areas including arms and 54 % (p = 0.0313) in areas including legs. All patient satisfactory evaluations were "excellent". Conclusions: RE:pair formula was safe and effective in improving skin barrier and itch relief, and if further studies are conducted, it can be used as an excellent topical treatment for post-burn scar that strengthens the skin barrier.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".