A Novel Glycinate-based Body Wash: Clinical Investigation Into Ultra-mildness, Effective Conditioning, and Improved Consumer Benefits.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the properties of a novel body wash containing the mild surfactant glycinate. DESIGN: Biochemical and clinical assays. SETTING: Research laboratories and clinical sites in the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Women 18 to 65 years of age (cleansing efficacy); male and female subjects 26 to 63 years of age with mild or moderate dryness and erythema (leg-controlled application test); subjects 5 to 65 years of age with mild-to-moderate eczema (eczema compatibility); and women 18 to 64 years of age (home use). MEASUREMENTS: Assessments across studies included colorimetric dye exclusion to assess skin damage potential (corneosurfametry), efficacy of cosmetic product removal from skin, change from baseline in visual dryness, change from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index, and self-perceived eczema attributes and self-reported product preference. RESULTS: The glycinate-based cleanser demonstrated mildness to skin components when evaluated in a corneosurfametry assay. Short-term use under exaggerated wash conditions in subjects with dryness scores <3 and erythema scores <2 (both on a 0-6 scale) indicated an initial reduction in visual dryness. In subjects with eczema, normal use resulted in significant improvements (p<0.05) at Week 4 compared with baseline in skin dryness (change from baseline = -0.73), rash (-0.56), itch (-0.927), tightness (-0.585), and all eczema (-0.756). The glycinate-based body wash removed 56 percent of a long-lasting cosmetic foundation from skin compared with less than 30 percent removed by two competitive products tested. The glycinate-based body wash was preferred over a competitive mild cleansing product overall. CONCLUSION: The patented glycinate-containing body wash demonstrated better product mildness and patient-preferred attributes and clinical benefits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".