An objective skin-type classification based on non-invasive biophysical parameters.

BACKGROUND: Despite the invention of various non-invasive bioengineering tools, skin-type analysis has largely been based on subjective assessments. However, advancements in the functional cosmetic industry and artificial intelligence-assisted dermatology are creating a greater demand for an objective skin-type classification system. OBJECTIVES: To propose an objective skin-type classification system solely based on non-invasive, bioengineering devices; provide reference values applicable to the Korean population; and compare our reference values with those of published studies. METHODS: Biophysical parameter measurements were obtained from the 2018 International Skin Characteristics Data Bank Project conducted by the Foundation of Korea Cosmetic Industry Institute. The participants were 434 healthy South Korean adults. Each participant was assessed using eight bioengineering devices (Tewameter® , pH-meter® , Corneometer® , Sebumeter® , Cutometer® , Spectrophotometer® , PRIMOS® lite, and Janus® ). The measurements were divided into tertiles to determine reference points. RESULTS: Our objective skin-type classification consists of five main categories (sensitivity, hydration, oiliness, elasticity, and skin tone) and five corresponding subcategories (erythema, roughness, pores, wrinkles, and pigmentation, respectively). Each skin type was assigned based on the reference point of the biophysical parameter, which was established as the tertile value associated with 'unfavourable' skin characteristics. Individuals were categorized as having sensitive skin when the TEWL scores were over 18.0 g/m2 /h or the pH was over 5.45; dehydrated skin when the corneometric value measured below 47.17 A.U.; oily skin when the sebumetric value exceeded 70 µg/cm2 ; and loose skin when the cutometric R2 value was below 0.68 E/mm. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to provide a comprehensive skin-type classification system based solely on non-invasive biophysical parameters. As measurement data accumulate, the reference points will progress to become more accurate, and they will be subdivided according to gender, age, and ethnic group. Therefore, our classification system serves as a basis for artificial intelligence-based skin-type analysis.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of different formulations of omeprazole-based triple therapies in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori-positive peptic ulcer.

Little is known about the efficacy and safety of different formulations of omeprazole-based triple therapy regimens for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori-positive peptic ulcer. We compared the efficacy and safety of two formulations of omeprazole used in triple therapies in patients with H. pylori-positive active peptic ulcer. Seventy-four patients with endoscopically proven H. pylori-positive active peptic ulcer were randomized to two groups, each with 37 patients, to receive either OAC-I (6 weeks of "A" formulation of omeprazole [20 mg twice daily] plus 2 weeks of amoxicillin [1.0 g twice daily] and clarithromycin [500 mg twice daily] or OAC-II (6 weeks of "B" formulation of omeprazole [20 mg twice daily] plus 2 weeks of the same antibiotics. The H. pylori and ulcer healing status were assessed at the baseline and at the 6-week endpoint of therapy. Gastrointestinal symptoms, documentation of adverse events, and standard laboratory examinations were assessed at each visit. Eradication of H. pylori (intention to treat [n = 74]/per protocol [n = 66]) and healing of the ulcer were successful in 83.8%/96.9% and 93.8%, respectively, of the OAC-I group patients, and in 91.9%/100% and 97.1%, respectively, of the OAC-II group patients (P = 0.477; P = 0.608). The OAC-I group experienced rapid resolution of symptoms, but no significant differences were found between the two groups for number of days taken for resolution of gastrointestinal symptoms, adverse events, and laboratory findings. The two different formulations of omeprazole used in triple therapy regimens produced similar efficacy and safety results after 6 weeks of treatment in patients with H. pylori-positive active peptic ulcer.