COSMETIC 360 brought beauty brands, researchers, CROs, technology companies, and innovators from around the world to Paris to talk about what’s next in beauty.
For us, some of the most interesting takeaways came from the questions people asked.
Across conversations with research teams, brands, and CROs, several themes surfaced repeatedly: How do we measure skin consistently across diverse populations? How do we know a measurement reflects real biology? And how can researchers follow changes in the skin over time without adding more invasive procedures to a study?
Those questions point to a broader shift in beauty research. As the industry gets more sophisticated about the claims it makes, expectations for the evidence behind those claims are changing, too.
Inclusive research requires better measurement
One question came up more than any other: Does the measurement hold across every skin tone?
It’s an increasingly important consideration as brands work to make clinical studies more representative of the consumers they serve.
Recruiting a diverse study population is only part of the equation. The measurement methods used in the study also need to perform consistently across that population.
That can be challenging with optical measurements. In some approaches, higher levels of melanin can influence the ability to distinguish other signals in the skin, including hemoglobin. A tool may be objective in the sense that it produces a number, while the underlying physics still affects what that number can capture.
This is why conversations about diversity in clinical research increasingly need to include not only who is being measured, but how they are being measured.
For MedX, that led to useful conversations about SIAscopy™, which separates melanin, hemoglobin, and collagen so they can be measured independently rather than inferred from surface color. But the larger takeaway goes beyond any single technology: measurement methodology matters when the goal is evidence that works across a diverse population.
Validation matters more as the endpoints get more sophisticated
Another recurring theme was validation.
Beauty research has moved well beyond simple before-and-after photography. Teams are looking at pigmentation, redness, collagen, biomarkers, imaging, and other endpoints to understand what is changing in the skin and why.
With more sophisticated endpoints comes a higher bar for evidence.
Researchers want to understand what a technology is measuring, how that measurement has been validated, how variable the data is, and whether results can be reproduced across visits and subjects.
That scrutiny is a good thing. New technology can generate enormous amounts of data, but more data does not automatically mean better evidence.
The question is whether the measurement provides information researchers can trust and use.
Longitudinal data is becoming more important
We also heard significant interest in following skin over time.
A single measurement can tell researchers what is happening at one moment. Repeated measurements can begin to show the trajectory of change: what happens after two weeks, six weeks, or several months of product use.
The challenge is finding objective measurements that are practical to repeat.
Biopsy can provide valuable biological information, for example, but it is invasive and difficult to use repeatedly across a large consumer study. Non-invasive measurement creates different possibilities, particularly when researchers can return to the same site and compare results on a consistent scale.
That opens the door to asking more interesting questions about when biological changes begin, how they progress, and whether they persist.
The practical questions matter, too
Perhaps one of the most useful reminders from Paris was that research teams are evaluating more than the science behind a new technology.
They also want to know how it fits into an actual study.
Can it be incorporated into an existing protocol? How difficult is it for a technician to use? Can researchers reliably return to the same measurement location? What does the output look like? Can the data be exported? What does it add to, or potentially replace, in the current study design?
These may sound like operational questions, but they ultimately determine whether an interesting technology becomes a useful research tool.
They also reinforced the importance of showing rather than simply explaining. Seeing a measurement taken, watching the resulting data appear, and understanding how it can be compared from one visit to the next often answers questions that are difficult to address in a brochure or presentation.
Bringing the questions home from Paris
COSMETIC 360 gave us plenty to think about as we look ahead to the next year of beauty research.
The conversations were a reminder that the industry isn't simply looking for more technology. Researchers are asking for measurement approaches that are scientifically grounded, reproducible, practical to use, and appropriate for the increasingly diverse populations included in beauty research.
Those are encouraging questions because better questions ultimately lead to better evidence.
Thank you to everyone who stopped to talk with us in Paris, shared what your teams are trying to measure, and gave us new questions to bring home.
For those who want to continue the conversation, we're always happy to share more about the science behind SIAscopy™ or show how SkinSecure™ works in a study setting.
Interested in how objective, non-invasive measurement could fit into your research? Explore SkinSecure™ to learn more about the technology, the science behind it, and how it can be used to measure and track changes in skin over time.