MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405973479 · doi:10.7759/cureus.76762

A Comparative, Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, and Delay of Relapse of Ceramide-Based Post-biotic Moisturizer Versus Paraffin-Based Moisturizer in Mild to Moderate Atopic Dermatitis

2025· article· en· W4405973479 on OpenAlexaff
Abhiek De, Saswati Halder, Uday Kiran Raja, Dhiraj Dhoot, Gaurang Jani

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoisturizerMedicineAtopic dermatitisDermatologyRandomized controlled trialMulticenter studyInternal medicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory disease that impacts the quality of life of affected individuals as well as their families. Its pathogenesis involves impaired skin barrier function and immune dysregulation. Moisturizers are used in AD management as they help in repairing the skin barrier. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and prevention of relapse with ceramide-based post-biotic moisturizer against paraffin-based moisturizer in mild to moderate AD. METHOD: A total of 160 AD patients were grouped into two: Group I received desonide cream 0.05% and ceramide-based post-biotic moisturizer and Group II received desonide cream 0.05% and paraffin-based moisturizer. Both groups were given treatment for four weeks. Patients who achieved complete resolution entered the maintenance phase for a maximum duration of three months. They were followed up every two weeks telephonically or as and when the patient experienced a relapse. RESULTS: All 160 patients were completely cured and entered the maintenance phase at week 4. A total of 96/160 (71.25%) patients relapsed, with 44 relapses in Group I (55%) and 52 (65%) in Group II (p=0.25). However, in terms of mean relapse time, Group I had a 72.52±15.01 day remission period, whereas Group II had a 47.44±21.49 day remission period (p=0.0001). Moreover, Group I showed a statistically significantly prolonged estimated median time to relapse compared with Group II (median: 85 days versus 71 days, p=0.05). Both moisturizers were tolerated very well. CONCLUSION: Although both moisturizers were effective in resolving symptoms in the treatment phase, the ceramide-based post-biotic moisturizer was more effective and statistically significant in extending the remission period against the paraffin-based moisturizer in patients with mild to moderate AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicDermatology and Skin Diseases→French-language works237,207→