An International Study on Sensitive Skin Across Continents in Over 20,000 Women: Geographic and Age-Related Differences, Menstrual Regularities and Cycle Phase influence, and Effect on WEMWBS score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term "sensitive skin"(SS) encompasses the experience of unusual sensations like tingling, burning, or prickling, potentially accompanied by pain or itching, caused by various factors [1,2]. Physical (such as UV rays, temperature extremes, or wind), chemical (like cosmetics, soaps, water, or pollution), psychological (such as stress), or hormonal (related to menstrual cycles) factors have been described [1-4]. While "SS" commonly refers to facial skin, it can also affect other parts of the body like scalp, hands, or genitals. In women, SS can have a significant impact on their lives due to associated discomfort, inconvenience, and potential limitations. Studies on the prevalence of SS in the general population are scarce, and most of them are limited to one region [1-8]. Our objective was to conduct an international study in 20 countries in order to assess the prevalence of SS in women aged 18-55 y.o. A representative sample of women, 18 and 55 y.o, was recruited in 20 countries [United States n=1200; Canada n=1200; France n=1200; Argentina n=750; Brazil n=1200; Chile n=750; China n=1200; Egypt n=1000; Germany n=1200; Greece n=751; Italy n=1200; Mexico n=1200;Nigeria n=500; Poland n=1200; Saudi Arabia n=1200; South Africa n=800; Spain n=1200; Thailand n=750; Turkey n=750;] using a stratified, proportional quota sampling (PQS) with a replacement design. PQS was used based on the distribution of the population according to age, sex, environment (large cities, towns, and rural areas), and income, in each participating country, in order to guarantee national representativeness of the sample.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".