The DOI matches its Crossref record; 174 of the 174 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 56 of the 134 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review
Open accessAbstract
Skin exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and pollutants causes several skin disorders, calling for protection methods such as sunscreen application. However, common sunscreen contains chemicals that have displayed toxicity when exposed to ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, alternatives approaches have been recently developed, such as the use of natural phytochemicals as active ingredients in photoprotection preparations. Here, we review skin protection with focus on the physics of ultraviolet radiation and photoprotection by ultraviolet filters. We present sensors for measuring ultraviolet radiation and ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems. We discuss the phototoxicity of drugs, preservatives, personal care products, and pollutants. Photocarcinogenesis, photoallergy, photostability, and toxicity of sunscreen ingredients and their impacts on human health and skin, are also reviewed. We observed that phytochemicals are promising for photoprotection due to their ability to absorb photon energy, and thus act as antioxidants.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes literature on solar ultraviolet radiation, photoprotection, and natural phytochemical alternatives to conventional sunscreens. It concludes that phytochemicals are promising photoprotectants because they absorb photon energy and act as antioxidants, but standardization and clinical validation remain needed.
Key findings
- Only about 5% of solar ultraviolet radiation reaches the earth’s surface in the ultraviolet spectrum, corresponding to 96.65% UV-A and 3.35% UV-B, with UV-C virtually undetectable.
- Sun protection factors 15, 30, 45, and 50 block/absorb UV-B light at 93.3%, 96.7%, 97.8%, and 98.0%, respectively.
- Melanin provides an estimated 1.5–2.0 sun protection factor, with some suggestions up to 4 SPF, implying absorption of around 50% to 75% of ultraviolet radiation.
- Nordic countries showed skin cancer rates ranging from 25 to 34 per 100,000 population despite average radiation levels of 2.3–3.4 kWh/m², while Australia had the highest irradiation per day mean and the highest skin cancer rate; Asian and African countries had lower rates.
Methods
- Design: a systematic literature review was adopted to assess and synthesize available literature on photoprotection and associated impacts on human health and the environment.
- Data: published studies on ultraviolet physics, sensors, ecosystems, phototoxicity, photocarcinogenesis, sunscreen ingredients, skin microbiome, and natural photoprotectants; the text notes that about 52% of reviewed articles addressed ultraviolet impacts on biotic and abiotic environments, and 34 articles presented findings on human health effects.
- Analysis: qualitative/narrative synthesis with summary tables; no meta-analysis or primary experimental data are reported.
Limitations
- Stated: plant photoprotectants are constrained because biotic and abiotic factors such as crop management, latitude, climate, and soil affect phytochemical profiles, making it challenging to quantify or predict essential active ingredients in the right proportion after harvest.
- Stated: clinical trials of identified photoprotectants should be replicated to eradicate uncertainties and scaled up for mass production; photosafety testing remains important for natural agents.
- Evident from the text: although described as a systematic literature review, the paper does not report databases, search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or the total number of included studies, and findings are synthesized narratively rather than quantitatively.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 No full text of the sources · 25 Partly supported · 19 Supported · 16 No basis given · 9 Own interpretation · 7 Sources not found · 3 Supported so far · 2 Not supported · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“On the other hand, it protected the cell from apoptosis via modulating the tumor suppressor protein p53 and pro-apoptotic BAX (BCL-2-associated X protein), BAK (BCL-2 antagonist killer 1), BID (BCL-2-interacting domain death agonist) and BCL-2 (B-cell lymphoma-2) pathways (Reagan- Shaw et al. 2006).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Reagan-Shaw et al. 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports that sanguinarine pretreatment increased Bax, Bid, and Bak and decreased Bcl-2 in a pattern favoring apoptosis—not protection from it. The Discussion likewise says sanguinarine enhanced UVB-damaged HaCaT cells’ ability to undergo apoptosis. The paper describes protection from UVB damage through elimination of damaged cells, not protection of those cells from apoptosis. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Individual responses to phototoxic chemicals are influenced by several parameters, including absorption, metabolism and light penetration into the skin”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoallergy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Korzeniowska et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says phototoxic reactions require a large drug dose and exposure to light, supporting the general point that responses depend on more than the chemical alone. It does not identify absorption, metabolism, or light penetration into the skin as factors influencing individual responses; searches for those terms found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“According to Wnuk et al. (2022), benzophenone-3, an organic sunscreen formulation commonly used in cosmetic products to minimize damaging effect by ultraviolet radiation has been reported to disrupt functioning of organs, endocrine systems and fetal development in humans.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wnuk et al. 2022 source
The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies BP-3 as an organic sunscreen used in personal care products to reduce UV damage. The section on potential toxic effects (page unavailable) says BP-3 can disrupt human tissues and organs, including the endocrine system, and neonatal development during pregnancy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“UV-B radiation has the ability to traverse the entire epidermis layer and reach the dermis compartment of the human skin”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Romanhole et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Solar radiation section says UVB can penetrate the stratum corneum and epidermis, but does not say it traverses the entire epidermis or reaches the dermis. The Radiation and its interaction with skin section says UVB is mainly absorbed by epidermal cell components and identifies UVA as penetrating deeper, even to dermal fibroblasts. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites WHO Newsroom 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“On the other hand, direct ultraviolet-induced DNA and membrane damage to the skin microbiome may result in pathogen-associated molecular patterns that interfere with ultraviolet-induced immune suppression (Patra et al. 2018).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Patra et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction’s ‘Ultraviolet-radiation (UV-R)’ section says UV affects the skin microbiome and that a skin commensal may diminish UV-induced immune suppression by converting cis-urocanic acid to its trans form. It does not say that UV directly damages microbial DNA or membranes, or that damage generates pathogen-associated molecular patterns that interfere with immune suppression. The paper provides a different proposed mechanism for the claimed interference. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, a recent study on mice model of contact hypersensitivity and germ-free reported that the skin microbiome inhibited ultraviolet-induced immune suppression (Patra et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Patra et al. 2019 source
The Results section, “Skin Microbiome Limits UV-Induced Suppression of Systemic Adaptive Immune Response,” reports that the presence of a microbiome inhibited UV-B-induced suppression of contact hypersensitivity in SPF mice, while germ-free mice showed greater suppression. The Discussion likewise describes protection against UV-induced immune suppression in the germ-free and SPF mouse comparison. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Many dyes, for example methylene blue, rose Bengal and eosin, pigments, for example chlorophyll, hematoporphyrin and flavins, and aromatic hydrocarbons are effective photosensitizers because these molecules may reach a long-lived triplet state in high quantum yield”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoallergy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Ormond and Freeman 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (§1.1; page not provided) explains that a photosensitizer can enter a longer-lived triplet state, and §2.4 identifies methylene blue and rose Bengal as sensitizers. The cited paper does not establish a high quantum yield for reaching that triplet state across the listed molecules; its reported quantum yields concern singlet oxygen. The searched passages also do not substantiate the claim about eosin, flavins, or aromatic hydrocarbons. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Xiao et al. 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The Micrococcus luteus strain has the unique ability to counteract the negative effects of ultraviolet on the immune system by converting the cis-urocanic acid produced by ultraviolet radiation during skin exposure (Patra et al. 2018).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Patra et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction’s UV-R section says that UV exposure converts trans-urocanic acid to cis-urocanic acid and that Micrococcus luteus can convert cis-UCA back to its trans form. It says this could *potentially* diminish immune suppression; it does not establish that the bacterium counteracts UV’s immune effects or that this ability is unique. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Sadly, most sunscreen formulations contain organic and inorganic ultraviolet filters that are non-biodegradable in marine and terrestrial ecosystems.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Milito et al. 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6 (page not provided) says sunscreens typically contain organic or inorganic UV filters and reports evidence that some synthetic filters may harm marine environments. Section 13 (page not provided) discusses potential pollution of ground and sea waters, but neither section establishes that most formulations contain filters that are non-biodegradable in both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Wastewater sewers and treatment plants form the main pathway of ultraviolet filters to the environment.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Chatzigianni et al. 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Pathways of UV filters from sunscreens to the environment” section identifies wastewater treatment plants and sewage systems as routes by which UV filters reach the environment. It also describes direct transfer to water and does not establish that wastewater systems are the main pathway. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 27
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The authors substantiated this by reporting that trend estimates of ultraviolet irradiance showed no significant difference during study periods”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chubarova et al. 2018 source
- Disputedcites Zhang et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.4 (page unavailable) reports statistically significant positive surface-UV trends in some regions and significant negative trends at ground-observation sites in the Northeast and Ohio River Valley. The Conclusion and discussion (page unavailable) also says estimated trends differ by sampling method. This contradicts the unqualified claim that trend estimates showed no significant difference. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Aun et al. 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The development of carcinoma depends on the UV-A and UV-B absorption by the superficial skin layers and is mainly responsible for oxidative damage to cellular DNA, proteins and lipids, via photosensitized reactions, which can lead to mutations in key cancer genes”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites D'Orazio et al. 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Photocarcinogenesis is the result of a series of simultaneous and sequential biochemical reactions that eventually result in skin cancer”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Subhadarshani et al. 2020 source
The Mechanisms of Photocarcinogenesis section describes a systematic sequence in which molecular and biochemical changes accumulate in keratinocytes, leading to basal and squamous cell carcinomas. Its initiation, promotion, and progression stages support the claim's description of a multistep process leading to skin cancer. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Physical ultraviolet filters, such as sunglasses and sun clothing, and chemical ultraviolet filters, such as sunscreen lotions, are both useful, but they do not offer comprehensive protection”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites D'Orazio et al. 2013 source
The Conclusions recommend sunscreen, protective clothing, hats and UV-protective sunglasses together. They also advise repeated sunscreen application and coverage of often-missed areas, supporting the point that these measures are useful but do not individually provide comprehensive protection. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Ruszkiewicz et al. 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes chemical and physical UV filters as sunscreen ingredients used to minimize UV-related harm, and notes that melanoma prevalence has risen despite increasing sunscreen use. It does not identify sunglasses or sun clothing as physical UV filters or assess whether those items offer comprehensive protection. Instead, it names zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as physical filters. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites Garnacho Saucedo et al. 2020 source
The Photoprotective measures section describes clothing and sunglasses as effective physical barriers and says sunscreen minimizes UV damage but should not be used to justify longer sun exposure. The Chemical or organic sunscreens section describes UV protection from sunscreen ingredients, while the paper recommends combining these measures with shade and reduced exposure. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Sunscreens can induce side effects such as irritation, allergy and phototoxic reactions, affect the synthesis of vitamin D, generate reactive oxygen species and act as photosensitizers (DiNardo and Downs 2018;Ngoc et al. 2019;Neale et al. 2019;Passeron et al. 2019;Narla and Lim 2020;Suh et al. 2020).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DiNardo and Downs 2018 source
- Partly supportedcites Ngoc et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.5 reports contact sensitivity, photoallergic dermatitis, and a possible reduction in vitamin D production from sunscreen use, while noting conflicting findings on vitamin D. Section 2.2 says sunscreen nanoparticles can produce reactive oxygen species. The review does not establish phototoxic reactions or that sunscreens act as photosensitizers; the latter term appears in a reference title. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Neale et al. 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“For example, sun protection factors 15, 30, 45 and 50 block/absorb the UV-B light 93.3%, 96.7%, 97.8% and 98.0%, respectively (Wilson et al. 2012).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Challenges
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Wilson et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses surface UV radiation and its health impacts, but does not discuss sunscreen. Searches for SPF, sunscreen, and the four stated UV-B blocking percentages found no supporting passage in our copy. The citing sentence names Wilson et al. (2012), but our copy does not identify that work as the source of these figures. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Bernhard et al. (2020) reported that changes in ultraviolet radiation during the last twenty years have been generally minimal, resulting in less than 4% in a decade.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bernhard et al. 2020 source
Section 1.6 (p. 10) states that changes in UV radiation during the last 20 years have generally been small—less than approximately 4% per decade—with few exceptions. This supports the citing sentence’s paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Ultraviolet radiation has been shown to cause significant changes in the skin as well as modify immunological responses (Shen et al. 2016).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Shen et al. 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (“Transcriptomic responses to different UVR conditions”; page unavailable) reports substantial UV-induced gene-expression changes in cultured human keratinocytes, including enrichment of inflammatory-response and leukocyte-activation pathways. This supports changes in skin cells and immune-related gene expression, but the Discussion cautions that cultured cells do not capture interactions among cell types in vivo; the paper does not directly establish a modified immunological response in skin. (LLM, conf=0.84)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Indirect photolysis in an aquatic environment thereby generates toxins, like cyclodimers and benzoic acids, from the untreated effluents, with the consequence that aquatic life is greatly hampered.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Chatzigianni et al. 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Pathways of UV filters from sunscreens to the environment” section (page not provided) says direct or indirect photolysis can form harmful by-products, including substituted benzoic acids and cyclodimers. It also says wastewater effluents can carry residual UV agents into marine ecosystems. It does not specifically say these by-products form from untreated effluents or establish that the by-products themselves greatly hamper aquatic life. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“According to current research, skin microorganisms have an impact on gene expression in the skin and are responsible for training and adjusting its immunological response (Belkaid and Segre 2014;Meisel et al. 2018).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Belkaid and Segre 2014 source
- Supportedcites Meisel et al. 2018 source
The Discussion reports that microbial colonization changes gene expression in the skin and describes the microbiome as priming the cutaneous immune response. The Conclusions likewise state that the skin microbiome mediates immune-response processes at the transcriptional level. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Umar and Tasduq (2022) highlighted the positive impacts of ultraviolet radiation on human skin which ranges from the enhancement of melanogenesis that acts as natural sunscreen inherent in dark-skinned people, to ultraviolet radiation phototherapeutic treatment of inflamed cutaneous conditions.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Umar and Tasduq (2022) source
In “UV Induced Melanogenesis Acts as a Natural Sunscreen,” the paper says UV exposure promotes melanin synthesis and describes melanin’s photoprotective effect. In “UV Phototherapy in Treatment of Numerous Cutaneous Disorders,” it describes UV phototherapy for inflammatory skin conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. The comparison of skin-cancer incidence in White and Black subjects also supports the reference to darker skin. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Abundant melanin pigmentation and thicker dermis layer might help to shroud wrinkles, but indirect DNA lesions and oxidative stress are catalyzed by the availability of more melanin pigments”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lee 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2 says pheomelanin is phototoxic and promotes UV-induced damage, supporting a limited link between a type of melanin and skin damage. It also says eumelanin is photoprotective. The Introduction mentions wrinkles but does not say pigmentation or a thicker dermis conceals them; sections 3.1 and 3.2 do not establish that more melanin catalyzes oxidative stress or indirect DNA lesions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common type of non-melanoma skin cancer.It is responsible for roughly 20% of all skin cancer cases discovered”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Prasad et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Abstract says basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are the two most common non-melanoma skin cancers, with basal cell carcinoma far more frequent. The Discussion reports that squamous cell carcinoma accounts for approximately 20% of cutaneous malignancies in lighter-skinned populations, particularly Caucasians; it does not establish that percentage for all skin cancer cases without that population qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Generally, there is abundant evidence that ultraviolet radiation is carcinogenic to humans, and it forms the major driver of other underlying medical conditions ranging from eye defects, sunburn, skin disorder and hair damage”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Grandi & D'Ovidio 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2 (page unavailable) identifies melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers among the best-known long-term effects of solar radiation and says effects on the skin and eyes are mostly attributed to UVA and UVB. It does not substantiate the full list in the claim: searches for sunburn and hair damage found no passage attributing those effects to UV radiation. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim & Giovannucci 2020 source
- Partly supportedcites Moan et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'UV from sun and sunbeds' section identifies UVB's carcinogenic potential, supporting the cancer-risk portion of the claim. But 'Sun and cutaneous malignant melanoma' says the causal role of sun exposure in melanoma is disputed, and the cited passages do not establish UV as a major driver of eye defects, skin disorders, or hair damage. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Ultraviolet radiation has been shown to alter the composition and activity of the microbiota, as well as modulate cellular response and immunological function”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Patra et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Results (page unavailable) report that UV-B changes skin gene expression, cellular responses, and immune function, with effects that differ depending on whether a skin microbiome is present. They do not show that UV alters the composition or activity of the skin microbiota; the study compares mice with and without microbiomes rather than measuring UV-induced changes in the microbes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“According to an in vitro study, UV-B irradiation increased the number of human keratinocyte (HaCaT) cells in the gap 2-mitosis phase of the cell cycle, but pretreatment with sanguinarine dramatically shifted cells toward the synthesis phase.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Reagan-Shaw et al. 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not supplied) says UVB caused G2–M arrest in HaCaT cells and sanguinarine pretreatment caused significant S-phase arrest at 15 mJ/cm² UVB. At 30 mJ/cm², however, pretreatment caused G2–M arrest instead, so the claimed shift toward S phase needs a low-dose qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Porphyrins play a vital role in the function of hemoglobin, ultraviolet rays also directly affect cutaneous propionibacteria such as Propionibacterium acnes by reducing their porphyrin production (Wang et al. 2012).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wang et al. 2012 source
The Results section (“Porphyrin Production in P. acnes Serves as a Parameter of UV Radiation,” Figure 2) reports that porphyrin production in P. acnes fell as UV-B dose increased. The human facial bacteria results (Figure 4) also show a dose-dependent reduction after UV-B exposure. The cited evidence concerns UV-B specifically. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This finding was based on the 16S rDNA sequencing and reveals a decrease in the family Lactobacillaceae and Pseudomonadaceae while the phylum Cyanobacteria increased following ultraviolet radiation exposure (Burns et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Burns et al. 2019 source
The Methods (DNA isolation and microbiome analysis; page not provided) describe sequencing the V4 region of the 16S rDNA gene. The Results (UV exposure alters the skin microbiome; page not provided) report a general increase in Cyanobacteria and decreases in Lactobacillaceae and Pseudomonadaceae after UVA and UVB exposure, while noting some individual exceptions. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This enzyme possesses intriguing features that may be useful in lowering oxidative damage caused by ultraviolet exposure (Souak et al. 2021).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Souak et al. 2021 source
Section 4.2 identifies RoxP as an antioxidant enzyme and says it has properties that could be useful in reducing oxidative stress linked to UV exposure. The citing sentence preserves that tentative wording. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Phytochemicals may operate in a variety of ways, including being capable of absorbing the ultraviolet and act as filters, stimulating the immune system, triggering gene suppression, stopping oxidative DNA damage, detoxifying carcinogens and initiating specific signaling pathways (Vanhaelewyn et al. 2020).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Vanhaelewyn et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on phenolics (page unavailable) says flavonoids absorb UV radiation, filter harmful UV-B rays, and act as antioxidants. It also describes antimicrobial effects and plant defense responses. It does not support the full list of mechanisms attributed to phytochemicals, particularly stimulation of the immune system, gene suppression, prevention of oxidative DNA damage, or detoxification of carcinogens; the DNA Damage section instead discusses separate DNA-repair mechanisms. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Rabiei et al. showed that ultraviolet protection of workwear fabrics can be improved by coating titania nanoparticles (Rabiei et al. 2022).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rabiei et al. 2022 source
The Conclusion reports that TiO2-coated textiles had greater ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) values than uncoated textiles and explicitly concludes that coating workwear fabrics with TiO2 nanoparticles can improve their UV protection. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Also, oral photoprotectants do not offer full skin protection, but they provide a boost to set photoprotection in motion in living organisms (Torres-Contreras et al. 2022).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Torres-Contreras et al. 2022 source
Section 3, “Plant-Derived Molecules as Skin Photoprotection Agents” (page not provided), says oral photoprotectors do not directly protect the skin but can boost or activate its photoprotective mechanisms. This supports the citing sentence’s distinction between incomplete protection and a boost to the body’s defenses. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About 52% of the reviewed articles, as shown in the Supplementary Material, addressed the impacts of ultraviolet radiation on biotic and abiotic environments, with major reports bordering on marine/aquatic life responses to the ultraviolet effect.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirty-four of the articles reviewed for this work presented findings on the beneficial and adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation on human health.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, chronic exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, especially UV-A and UV-B, generates oxidative stress and induces skin damage.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sardoiwala et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, its limitation in cosmetics applications is an uneven distribution on the skin due to lumping; thus, the uncovered areas are exposed to sunlight, not resistant to water, and easily washed off by sweating and water contact giving the skin a comparatively whiter than normal shade.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoprotection by ultraviolet filters
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saka and Chella 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, coal tar is used to treat psoriasis, which contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: It is applied topically to the skin followed by ultraviolet radiation exposure.This treatment has been implicated in the pathogenesis of acquiring skin cancer”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fu et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Photochemical and cytological studies suggested that para-aminobenzoic acid interacts with DNA following ultraviolet radiation and might potentiate photocarcinogenesis.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Sunscreen ingredients
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shaw et al. 1992 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons go through a series of photochemical processes that result in the production of reactive oxygen species and photoproducts, which can damage cell membranes and DNA, and cause cell death”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The application of sunscreen before exposure to ultraviolet radiation, prevents sunburn, skin damage as well as skin cancer (Medeiros and Lim 2010;Mancebo et al. 2014).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Challenges
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Medeiros and Lim 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mancebo et al. 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can induce breathing problems, chest pain and vexing coughing, as well as cancer”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Srivastav et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“According to studies, after ultraviolet radiation exposure, these ingredients become photosensitized and form toxic photoproducts, which causes genetic damage and apoptosis in skin cells”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Personal care products
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sunburn is caused mostly by UV-B, which is a substantial risk factor for skin cancer, particularly melanoma.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“UV-A causes genetic damage to cells, photoaging and immunosuppression when it penetrates deep into the dermis of the skin.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generally, ultraviolet radiation in form of UV-A and UV-B penetrates beyond the stratospheric ozone layer and delivers both beneficial and adverse effects on human health, plants, air quality, biogeochemical systems, and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, physical and chemical measures of photoprotection are insufficient, and an alternative is necessary.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to a recent study, nabumetone, which is used as anti-inflammatory medicine, loses its function when exposed to UV-A and UV-B, and rises inflammatory markers”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Qureshi et al. 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It might be harmful to fetuses and children because it can be transmitted during suckling.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Anti-inflammatory drugs such as ketoprofen, naproxen showed phototoxic products and induce dermatological complications like photoallergic responses”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Inadequate sunlight exposure induces the prevalence of cardio-metabolic diseases, resulting in low vitamin D synthesis in Africans and Asians residing in temperate regions”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although people with darker skin complexion experience less noticeable erythema symptoms manifest as redness of the skin or sunburn upon longer sunlight exposure, it is appropriate to say that carcinogenic threats and DNA damage can appear as malignant as those affecting people of lighter skin tones.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is most frequent in Caucasian populations and uncommon among Asians and African black races”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chu et al. 2007 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Photosensitized sunscreen agents lose their protection efficacy, trigger phototoxic reactions and induce skin cell damage”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With increasing overall lifetime exposure to sunlight/solar radiation, the risk of photocarcinogenesis in the head, neck, trunk and limbs rises.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Voriconazole and itraconazole are antifungal drugs that have been linked to liver damage, phototoxicity and cutaneous squamous cell cancer.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mujtaba et al. 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“UV-B, on the other hand, only penetrates the epidermis and damages cells.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly 80% of all occurrences of non-melanoma skin cancer are caused by basal cell carcinoma.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Usually, these chemical filters penetrate the skin, reach the circulatory system and can have a systemic action on the body and filters undergo changes and degradation”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoprotection by ultraviolet filters
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saka and Chella 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It also observed that UV-B activation of chrysene enhances the intercellular oxidative stress and causes apoptosis by activating caspases-3 and phosphatidylserine translocation in skin cells.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Srivastav et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The abundance of eumelanin in dark skin offers superior defense against UV-induced damage, with eumelanin being considered more effective in its photoprotective properties than pheomelanin (Gloster and Neal 2006).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gloster and Neal 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, photocarcinogenesis is dependent on a few factors, for example age, gender and the thickness of the skin.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the most common benefit known to be vitamin D synthesis”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“After ultraviolet exposure, DNA damage, potent phospholipid activator formation factor and isomerization of inactive trans-to active cis-urocanic acid, are the primary key events in immunosuppression (Bernard et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bernard et al. 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Photosensitized methyl paraben and triclosan showed cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, arrest the cell cycle of skin cells and triggered apoptosis as well as plate sensitivity test showed a reduction in antibacterial activity”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dubey et al. 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has also been suggested that genistein could be used as a potent inhibitor for photocarcinogenesis (Moore et al. 2006).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Moore et al. 2006 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Some other studies reveal that cotton-based fabrics have excellent properties for ultraviolet protection (Kocić et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kocić et al. 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Grape seed proanthocyanidins belong to a class of phenolic compounds renowned for their potent antioxidant properties, safeguarding the body against premature aging, diseases and deterioration (Sharma et al. 2007).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma et al. 2007 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent study showed that anthocyanins against UV-B induced oxidative damage in keratinocyte cells and the activation of Nrf 2 (nuclear factor E2-related factor 2) signaling.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these findings should help researchers better understand how to treat ultraviolet-induced skin damage and other skin illnesses connected to microbiome changes or ultraviolet radiation exposure.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Findings from mouse and in vitro studies of phytochemical photoprotection generalize to human skin.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Modification of gene expression, activation or inactivation of regulatory pathways, immunological and inflammatory processes, and induction of apoptosis are all examples of photooxidative reactions that disrupt the function of cellular responses.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In textile manufacturing, polysorbate improved ultraviolet exposure protection and the esthetics of polyester fabric (Sk et al. 2022).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sk et al. 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Natural agents and secondary plant extracts have been elaborately discussed and presented to offer future prospects as sustainable options for sunscreen technology.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Natural agents can supplement the inadequacies of conventional sunscreens in ultraviolet radiation protection.
- Rests on an assumption: Findings from mouse and in vitro studies of phytochemical photoprotection generalize to human skin.
In the paper
“It has antimutagenic, anti-inflammatory and anticarcinogenic (Nandakumar et al. 2008) properties.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nandakumar et al. 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Piperine was also observed to lower ultraviolet radiation-mediated DNA damage, micronuclei creation and the sub-Gap 1 phase of the cell cycle, all of which helped to protect against photogenotoxicity.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verma et al. 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these studies show that ultraviolet radiation has significant qualitative and quantitative effects on the skin microbiota, potentially affecting skin pathology where ultraviolet radiation is a factor.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
There are limited comprehensive review studies that specifically investigated alternative materials and new approaches to overcome the negative effects of using photoprotection, including protective ultraviolet agents made from synthetic materials, on human health and the ecosystem.
“To our knowledge, there are limited comprehensive review studies that specifically investigated the alternative materials as well as new approaches to overcome the negative effects of using photoprotection, including protective ultraviolet agents made from synthetic materials on human health and the ecosystem.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ultraviolet radiation is the most important risk factor for skin cancer.
“Still, ultraviolet radiation is the most important risk factor for skin cancer.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The natural skin protection mechanism is not effective after a short period of a few minutes, depending on skin type and the intensity of ultraviolet radiation.
“The natural skin protection mechanism is not effective after a short period of a few minutes, which also depends on the skin type and the intensity of ultraviolet radiation coming into that area.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sunscreen usage as a primary prevention approach has limited success in fully preventing skin disorders.
“As primary prevention approaches, sunscreen usage has shown limited success in fully preventing skin disorders.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Synthetic materials in sunscreen formulations are a threat to aquatic life, eco-sustainability and human health.
“Sunscreen formulation is characterized by synthetic materials that are a threat to aquatic life, eco-sustainability and human health.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Natural agents can supplement the inadequacies of conventional sunscreens in ultraviolet radiation protection.
“Natural agents are prepared to supplement the inadequacies of conventional sunscreens in ultraviolet radiation protection.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Findings from mouse and in vitro studies of phytochemical photoprotection generalize to human skin.
“The outcome of several experimental studies strongly suggests that these phytochemicals could be employed in therapeutic applications like cosmetics or medicine formulations to prevent ultraviolet-induced skin damage (Nguyen et al. 2022).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Variability in plant photoprotectant active ingredients is a trivial problem compared with their photoprotective prospects.
“However, this seems to be a trivial problem as the photoprotective prospects outweigh this uncertainty.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
“UV-B radiation has the ability to traverse the entire epidermis layer and reach the dermis compartment of the human skin, as represented in Fig. 1 (Romanhole et al. 2015;WHO Newsroom 2016).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
“UV-B, on the other hand, only penetrates the epidermis and damages cells.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
“On the other hand, it protected the cell from apoptosis via modulating the tumor suppressor protein p53 and pro-apoptotic BAX (BCL-2-associated X protein), BAK (BCL-2 antagonist killer 1), BID (BCL-2-interacting domain death agonist) and BCL-2 (B-cell lymphoma-2) pathways (Reagan- Shaw et al. 2006).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > References
“Enhancement of UVB radiation-mediated apoptosis by sanguinarine in HaCaT human immortalized keratinocytes.”
Citations
Cites
D'Orazio, J., Jarrett, S., Amaro-Ortiz, A., & Scott, T. (2013) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms140612222 · Cited by 1,984
The Protective Role of Melanin Against UV Damage in Human Skin †
Brenner, M., & Hearing, V. J. (2008) · Photochemistry and Photobiology · doi:10.1111/j.1751-1097.2007.00226.x · Cited by 1,741
The Role of Polyphenols in Human Health and Food Systems: A Mini-Review
Cory, H., Passarelli, S., Szeto, J., Tamez, M., & Mattei, J. (2018) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2018.00087 · Cited by 1,297
Nichols, J. A., & Katiyar, S. K. (2010) · Archives of Dermatological Research · doi:10.1007/s00403-009-1001-3 · Cited by 1,103
Dye Sensitizers for Photodynamic Therapy
Ormond, A., & Freeman, H. (2013) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma6030817 · Cited by 847
Krutmann, J., Bouloc, A., Sore, G., Bernard, B. A., & Passeron, T. (2017) · Journal of Dermatological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jdermsci.2016.09.015 · Cited by 768
Dialogue between skin microbiota and immunity
Belkaid, Y., & Segre, J. A. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1260144 · Cited by 749
Gloster, H. M., & Neal, K. (2006) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.08.063 · Cited by 668
Polymeric composite materials for radiation shielding: a review
More, C., Alsayed, Z., Badawi, M., Thabet, A., & Pawar, P. (2021) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-021-01189-9 · Cited by 638
The role of polyphenols in modern nutrition
Williamson, G. (2017) · Nutrition Bulletin · doi:10.1111/nbu.12278 · Cited by 551
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- de Paula CM, Germano Marciano A, Silveira Barreto Carvalho V et al (2021) Exposome extrinsic factors in the tropics: the need for skin protection beyond solar UV radiation. Sci Total Environ 782:146921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146921 · DOI
- Medeiros VLS, Lim HW (2010) Sunscreens in the management of photodermatoses. Skin Therapy Lett 15:1–3
- Wilson BD, Moon S, Armstrong F (2012) Comprehensive review of ultraviolet radiation and the current status on sunscreens. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 5:18–23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3460660/ · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–102 of 102
Hwang, H., Koh, J., Yang, H., et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-70832-8
Network Pharmacology of Natural Products from Computational Prediction to Experimental Validation
Stephen, E. U., Hew, K., Tan, C.-Y., & Choo, Y. (2026) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines14102343
Metadata
- Authors
- Verma, A., Zanoletti, A., Kareem, K. Y., Adelodun, B., Kumar, P., Ajibade, F. O., Silva, L. F. O., Phillips, A. J., Kartheeswaran, T., Bontempi, E., & Dwivedi, A.
- Affiliations
- Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IN)
- National Interuniversity Consortium of Materials Science and Technology (IT)
- Kyungpook National University (KR)
- University of Ilorin (NG)
- Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya (IN)
- Federal University of Technology (NG)
- Corresponding author
- Verma, Ankit
- Zanoletti, Alessandra
- Adelodun, Bashir
- ORCID
- Venue
- Environmental Chemistry Letters
- Published
- 2023-09-15
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 273-295
- ISSN
- 1610-3653 (ISSN-L)
- 1610-3661
- OpenAlex
- W4386773922
- Semantic Scholar
- e5b358635f7023ad730cc050c7380e9361e95aa9
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 174
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 28.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Environmental Chemistry Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
- Greater South Information System
- Funders
- Università degli Studi di Brescia
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry (medical) › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
- Keywords
- skin photoprotection, solar ultraviolet radiation, phytochemicals, sunscreen ingredients, phototoxicity, photocarcinogenesis, photoallergy, photostability, antioxidants, personal care products, preservatives, pollutants
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review