J Am Acad Dermatol March 2006 PMID 16488305

A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept.

Zoe Diana Draelos, Joseph C DiNardo

Mentions

9
Peak: 2 in Nov 2020
across 3 sources since May 2020

Extended reach

99,215
potential audience

Total likes

2,360

Video views

86,529

Mentions per month

May 2020 – Oct 2022

Where it's discussed

  • X / Twitter3 posts
  • YouTube3 videos
  • News3 articles

AI synopsis

What people are saying

The discussions reflect a keen interest in the study's challenge to traditional testing methods, with mentions of how earlier tests used animal models like rabbit ears and how current methods are moving towards human-based assessments. The tone varies from curiosity to validation of the research’s significance, emphasizing the study's potential to reshape understanding of product safety.

AgreementModerate agreement

Most discussions recognize that traditional animal tests are unreliable and that the new research questions previous assumptions about ingredient safety.

InterestHigh interest

Many posts show high curiosity about the topic, referencing specific details about testing methods and implications for skincare.

EngagementHigh engagement

Users actively analyze the study's methods and implications, with some expressing relief or surprise at the findings.

ImpactModerate impact

The discussions indicate a moderate potential influence on consumer awareness and industry practices, though full industry adoption may take time.

Abstract in brief

  • The text reevaluates the traditional idea that certain ingredients in skincare and cosmetics directly cause comedones, questioning the reliability of previous animal-based tests and assumptions.
  • The researchers adapted a human testing method to assess the comedogenic potential of actual finished products by applying them to volunteer skin and analyzing follicle changes through biopsies.
  • The findings suggest that finished cosmetic products containing usually problematic ingredients are not always comedogenic, indicating the need for more accurate assessment methods.]

Top posts

Most liked on X and Bluesky
Kelly Dobos, Cosmetic Chemist
@kellydobos · X

Comedogenicity and cosmetics. The original test method was developed using animal model, rabbit ear, and single ingredients. The assumption was the ingredient in formulation would also be comedogenic. That has not proven to be the case. https://t.co/ve8fxudxk1

Nov 2, 2020 · 2 likes · 5,489 followers View post →
Kelly Dobos, Cosmetic Chemist
@kellydobos · X

@krista_og Here's the study I was looking for. Basically the comedogenicity test was developed using rabbit ears. The industry moved away from animal testing years ago and attempted to use human subjects, using the back. https://t.co/ve8fxudxk1

Nov 2, 2020 · 5,489 followers View post →

All mentions

Diet Recipes Daily
@dietrecipesd · X

ARE YOUR CURLY HAIR PRODUCTS CAUSING ACNE? (causes, symptoms and solutions) https://t.co/tqLgwOifoU https://t.co/Z7xoXucuew

Oct 30, 2022 · 1,709 followers View post →
Kelly Dobos, Cosmetic Chemist
@kellydobos · X

Comedogenicity and cosmetics. The original test method was developed using animal model, rabbit ear, and single ingredients. The assumption was the ingredient in formulation would also be comedogenic. That has not proven to be the case. https://t.co/ve8fxudxk1

Nov 2, 2020 · 2 likes · 5,489 followers View post →
Kelly Dobos, Cosmetic Chemist
@kellydobos · X

@krista_og Here's the study I was looking for. Basically the comedogenicity test was developed using rabbit ears. The industry moved away from animal testing years ago and attempted to use human subjects, using the back. https://t.co/ve8fxudxk1

Nov 2, 2020 · 5,489 followers View post →