ArticleInternational journal of cosmetic science2025
Simultaneous morphological analysis of large numbers of hair cross sections as a tool for investigation of population-level trends.
Article in International journal of cosmetic science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Simultaneous morphological analysis of large numbers of hair cross sections as a tool for investigation of population-level trends.International journal of cosmetic science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCharacterizing the fibre properties of individuals with different hair textures across several ethnicities is important for understanding how hair shape varies within and between groups, and how these may influence consumer needs. Here, we present a high-throughput scanning electron microscope (SEM) method for simultaneous measurement of cross-sectional single hair shape parameters from hundreds of hairs per sample, which has not been feasible previously. We demonstrate the power of the method through application on a population with diverse hair types.
methodsScalp hairs were collected from individuals located in the United States of America. Each hair sample (consisting of up to several hundred fibres) was classified using two different methods, one during clinical collection [hair texture Types 1-4] and later another blind standard laboratory method [hair curliness classification Types I-VIII]. Additional clinical data were collected on age and self-identified ethnicity. Hair shape parameters (cross-sectional area, ellipticity, shape factors) were measured using a SEM sample preparation, imaging and image analysis method. SEM data were analysed with respect to clinical texture, age and self-identified ethnicity and subsequent hair curliness classifications.
resultsThe SEM method generated sufficient data from each sample to identify trends, and we found some statistically significant differences between SEM hair shape parameters and clinical sample types, as well as with laboratory curliness classifications. In the curliness classification, there was an expected tendency between hair curliness and aspect ratio: curlier hairs were more elliptical than straight hairs. In terms of the hair grouping types, in the age group, older individuals had thinner hairs than young ones. In the texture group, individuals in Texture Type 1 had thinner hairs than Texture Types 2, 3 and 4. Texture Types 3 and 4 had hairs with a more elliptical profile than individuals in Texture Types 1 and 2.
conclusionThe SEM method was reliable to quantify cross-sectional hair parameters within populations of donors with different types of hair. This approach corroborates clinically assessed hair type and curliness classification systems and provides a more thorough characterization of hair shape variation between and within individuals and ethnicities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.