The DERMS Playbook of Innovation, Integration & the Fall of Imitation

Ardeshir Bayat, MD PhD

Dermatological beauty has evolved from a niche into a cornerstone of the global beauty economy, driven by a consumer base that demands measurable results and ethical innovation. Skincare alone is estimated at $179-198 billion in 2025, with projections ranging $261–432 billion by 2033 (≈3.5–4.8% CAGR).^3,16 Its fastest-growing pocket is dermocosmetics, a category designed with therapeutic logic to address acne, eczema, hyperpigmentation, barrier dysfunction and photoaging. Dermocosmetics sales will reach $95.2 billion by 2032, a 10.3% CAGR.² These numbers, subject to economic and regional variability, point to something deeper than category expansion: a redefinition of what “beauty” promises, and how performance is proven (Figure 1).

The past decade’s dominant playbook, acquiring fast-scaling indie brands and stitching them into larger portfolios, shows structural cracks. Trend-anchored labels ride viral waves but rarely carry a durable science engine. Post-acquisition, many lose their authentic edge yet fail to gain clinical credibility. Consumers are data-literate and exacting. Purchase decisions hinge on measured outcomes (TEWL for barrier function, melanin index, erythema, elasticity), ethical sourcing, and truthful, evidence-based claims.⁶ 

Regulatory standards have risen significantly. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA) mandates product listing, safety substantiation and adverse event reporting in the US. EU Common Criteria require truthful, fair and evidence-based claims.^17,1

Winners will pivot from imitation to invention, building skin-intelligent platforms that fuse biotech-derived actives, AI diagnostics, adaptive formulation and claims-by-design into one coherent operating system. The prize is not the next viral SKU; it’s a learning system for skin health that compounds trust and performance over time.

This article (i) quantifies and contextualizes the shift from acquisition-led growth to science-led integration; (ii) introduces DERMS, a practitioner framework for building evidence-native dermatological platforms; and (iii) provides an end-to-end commercialization roadmap using a new cosmetic product case vignette. It is an integrative narrative review synthesizing peer-reviewed dermatology and aesthetics literature,^6-13 market and analyst reports^3,4,15,16 and regulatory frameworks.^1,17

Market Momentum & the New Consumer

Today’s consumer is reshaping dermatological beauty, demanding transparency and efficacy over aesthetics alone. Social platforms democratized ingredient literacy, turning clinical terms like TEWL (transepidermal water loss, a measure of skin barrier function) and erythema (redness) into everyday purchase criteria. This shift reflects a broader trend: buyers prioritize measurable outcomes and ethical practices, from allergen-free formulations to sustainable sourcing, making scientific credibility a competitive edge. 

Common behaviors include:

• Scanning for allergen disclosure and provenance.
• Recognizing biomarker shorthand (TEWL, melanin index, firmness) that maps to clinical endpoints.⁶
• Cross-checking safety/potency in public databases and apps, especially for aging and sensitive skin, where maintaining skin integrity is paramount.¹¹

Across multiple industry surveys, discovery still skews social, but trust concentrates in clinicians and evidence. Brands that co-create with experts in skin science, dermatologists, plastic surgeons and target exposome drivers (UV, pollution, lifestyle) gain share.^7,5 In practice, scientific credibility closes the sale, with higher consumer knowledge correlating with lower product return rates for brands proving efficacy.¹⁵ This new standard of due diligence directly impacts sales, rewarding brands that align with the skin-aging exposome (e.g., UV, pollution, lifestyle).⁷ (Figure 2).

The Volatility of Indie‑Hype

The indie brand boom brought agility and compelling narratives, but its reliance on viral trends reveals vulnerabilities at scale. Rapid M&A often creates fragmented portfolios lacking a unified scientific foundation, leaving conglomerates exposed to consumer skepticism and regulatory scrutiny. The following failure modes highlight why a new approach is needed.

Three recurring failure modes stand out:

• Shallow R&D stacks. Limited clinicals and variable quality control (QC) are quickly exposed by more knowledgeable consumers and tighter claims governance.⁹
• Single-active fragility. Over-reliance on one or two “it” ingredients leaves brands exposed to trend whiplash.
• The integration paradox. Tight integration blunts authenticity, loose integration forfeits synergies and shared learning.

Volatility destabilizes the parent company’s growth by anchoring value to unpredictable cycles rather than compounding innovation. The remedy is a strategic pivot from portfolio patchwork to platform: unify ingredient IP, diagnostics, data and claims so that evidence and insight compound across brands and cohorts

A look at seven current themes and trends and how brands can pivot to ensure longevity. 

The DERMS Framework

The cosmetic industry’s future hinges on moving beyond fragmented campaigns to integrated, evidence-driven systems. The DERMS framework, including Diagnostics, Evidence, Responsibility, Molecules, Systems, provides a blueprint for leaders to align innovation with consumer trust and regulatory demands. Each force addresses a critical bottleneck, from quantifying skin health to ensuring equitable outcomes. Together they form a platform that delivers compounding returns. The industry’s pain points are systemic. A checklist won’t fix trend-driven volatility or fragmented claims. Addressing the failure modes of shallow R&D, single-active fragility and the integration paradox requires a system that builds, not borrows, scientific credibility. Therefore, I hereby introduce the DERMS framework because the next era demands a system, one that ties measurement to molecules, molecules to evidence, evidence to governance and all of it to a platform that learns.

Why a framework? The industry’s center of gravity shifted from campaigns to capabilities. Winning operators need a way to design for evidence, scale it, and keep it honest. DERMS, Diagnostics, Evidence, Responsibility, Molecules, Systems, organizes the functions that turn scientific intent into market impact. It is not a set of checkboxes; it is a system:

• Diagnostics quantify skin status and anchor personalization;
• Evidence converts measurement to trust via trials and real-world data;
• Responsibility embeds safety, equity and claims integrity;
• Molecules supply tunable bio-actives engineered for performance and scale;
• Systems integrate everything into a platform so learning compounds.

Based on practitioner experience and regulatory realities, I weight the forces as follows for investment and operating focus: Evidence 35%, Systems 25%, Molecules 20%, Diagnostics 10%, Responsibility 10%. Evidence carries the greatest weight because it underwrites claims and trust. Systems is next because it makes evidence compounding and reusable across brands. Molecules provide functional differentiation. Diagnostics and Responsibility ensure personalization, safety, inclusion, and regulatory durability (Weights are a pragmatic allocation guide, not a statistical derivation).^{1,2,6,7,10-12}

Evidence Hierarchy

Evidence is the currency of trust in 2025’s beauty market. Consumers increasingly default to a clinical evidence hierarchy: Physician-designed protocols, split-face or randomized trials where appropriate and instrumental endpoints such as TEWL, erythema, pigmentation and elasticity. Using shared skin-quality language aligns brand claims with clinician expectations and consumer comprehension.⁶ Regulatory scrutiny reinforces the shift. In the US, MoCRA heightens safety substantiation and vigilance; in the EU, Common Criteria require truthful, supported claims.^1,2 In practice, a centralized claims engine, with protocol libraries, CRO partners and audit-ready dossiers, which become core capability (Figure 4).

Biotech as Brand Backbone

Biotech is upgrading the raw-materials stack from extractive to engineered. Precision-fermented proteins, postbiotic metabolites and AI-designed peptides enable tunable function, barrier, firmness and tone, with consistency and scalability. Frontier areas, including stem-cell-derived exosomes in cosmetic dermatology and regenerative aesthetics, illustrate the opportunity, with careful attention to on-label cosmetic claims.^12,18 These approaches enable tunable function (barrier, firmness, tone) with consistent quality and fewer ethical/supply concerns. The market for engineered actives continues to expand (Figure 5).⁴

Diagnostics & AI

Diagnostics are the gateway to personalized skincare, leveraging AI to deliver precise, inclusive insights. Computer-vision tools quantify wrinkles, pores, pigmentation and erythema with strong reliability, providing shared, objective anchors for consumers and clinicians alike.⁶ Modern systems are trained across Fitzpatrick I–VI to mitigate bias and can adjust recommendations with climate and circadian inputs. Diagnostics are the front door to Beauty-as-a-Service (BaaS): baselines, progress, and prompts that help users adhere, while generating the data that refines future formulations. Light-emitting diode (LED) devices provide non-invasive adjuncts with an emerging evidence base. (Figure 6).¹⁴

Systems: Platform, Not Portfolio

The future of dermatological beauty lies in integrated platforms that amplify evidence and efficiency across brands. The operating model of the future is a house of platforms, not a house of brands. Shared ingredient IP, diagnostic rails, claims/clinical engine and a unified data backbone let evidence and learning compound across the portfolio, improving speed to proof and speed to scale. The strategic migration away from “acquire and amplify” toward “invent and interlock” is summarized.^4,5

Beauty as Preventive Health

Responsibility is a non-negotiable pillar, ensuring dermatological beauty aligns with ethical and regulatory expectations. Skin health intersects with immunity, identity and mental well-being. Prevalent inflammatory conditions (e.g., rosacea) and the aging exposome require routines that reduce flares, protect the barrier and support long-term integrity, while staying within cosmetic boundaries.^7,8,11 Tone-aware endpoints (e.g., melanin index and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation severity) and stratified analyses reduce diagnostic bias. Enrollment targets should reflect real population diversity and claim language must match cohort-specific evidence to avoid over-generalization.^7,8,11

Technology as Catalyst

Technology integrates the DERMS framework, transforming dermatological beauty from static products to dynamic, outcome-driven services that resonate with 2025’s data-savvy consumers.

AI in R&D and Hyper‑Personalization

AI accelerates R&D by narrowing search spaces, modeling stability/compatibility, and flagging risks, compressing development timelines. For consumers, AI-driven diagnostics quantify hyperpigmentation and erythema across diverse skin tones, enabling precise, inclusive care plans that adapt to changing conditions, forming the backbone of Beauty-as-a-Service (BaaS).^6,5

“Phygital” Retail

Retail evolves into seamless physical-digital experiences with scans, AR try-ons, device-assisted tracking, and app-based follow-ups. Metaverse-style spaces and tokenized loyalty support evidence-based education, enhancing consumer engagement without distracting from clinical credibility.^9,10

Trust & Traceability

Tamper-evident ledgers verify ingredient origins and transformations, neutralizing greenwashing and aligning with consumer and regulatory demands for transparency in claims substantiation and vigilance documentation.^1,2

Beauty-as-a-Service

Beauty-as-a-Service (BaaS) redefines value by shifting from one-off product sales to continuous care relationships, leveraging diagnostics for personalized dispensing and measurable outcomes, with consistent safety standards.¹⁵ Standardized as “BaaS” throughout.

BaaS is a closed-loop model integrating diagnostics, personalization, fulfillment and outcome tracking, anchored by a centralized claims engine and compliance layer.^6,1,2 It operationalizes a continuous loop from inputs to decisions to actions to measured outcomes, with guardrails at every step. It links:

• in-app/store skin imaging (tone-inclusive endpoints like erythema, melanin indices)
• tailored formulation/dosing (calibrated to tolerance and goals),
• adherence support (nudges, refills, LED protocols), and 
• outcome tracking (on-label metrics, cohort dashboards).^6,12,1

Operating Architecture

Input Layer: at this layer, diagnostics are combined with context to guide personalization. Baseline and monthly scans (face, neck, hands), self-reports (stinging/PIH risk) and environmental data (UV/pollution) feed a tone-inclusive diagnostic pipeline; use clinic-grade TEWL in controlled settings only.⁶

Decision Layer: at this layer,  personalization of  skin care is delivered. Rules and machine learning select actives, strengths, frequency, and LED routines; intolerance triggers step-down protocols and route-to-review flags to maintain adherence.⁶

Action Layer: at this layer, fulfillment is delivered. Micro-batched or modular “booster + base” kits, with refill cadences tied to usage; QR-coded labels link to live claims pages.^1,12

Feedback Layer: at this layer outcomes and claims by tracking on-label endpoints are captured.Track on-label endpoints (erythema, color evenness, texture) at 4/8/12 weeks; data feed registries to update claims under MoCRA/EU Common Criteria.^1,12

Service Design & Cadence

• Onboarding (week 0): Diagnostic scan and skin history define a hero base and targeted booster, with optional LED routine.¹⁴
• Stabilization (weeks 1–4): Tolerance checks adjust frequency/vehicle before concentration, preventing unnecessary drop-offs.⁶
• Optimization (weeks 4–12): Refine routines based on instrumented deltas (measured changes in endpoints captured by devices); add second booster if endpoints plateau.⁶
• Maintenance (90-day cycles): Seasonal/environmental retunes; pause/restart rules for flares.⁶

KPIs to Prove BaaS

• Adherence (90-day), refill accuracy, outcome deltas (4/8/12 weeks); return rate vs. non-BaaS SKUs; LTV/CAC uplift (increase in the customer lifetime value to customer acquisition cost ratio); time-to-claim (protocol to compliant copy).^5,12
• Equity: improvement parity across Fitzpatrick I–VI; adverse event rates by cohort.^6,7

Claims & Compliance Guardrails

• Anchor recommendations to evidence registers; labels/QRs (Quick Response codes) cite studies, devices, cohorts.^1,12
• Keep claims cosmetic, avoiding disease language for frontier inputs (e.g., exosomes).^15,18 Route any borderline language through medical-legal-regulatory (MLR) review prior to release.
• Document cosmetovigilance (triage, escalation, reporting Service Level Agreements (SLAs).¹

Commercial Model

Tiers: Diagnostics-only (baseline/quarterly scans); product-only (standardized sets); BaaS bundle (diagnostics, dispensing, LED, coaching); clinician-linked (tele-derm, referrals).¹⁵

Rollout Roadmap

• 0–3 months: MVP (minimum viable product) loop (diagnostics, one booster), simple rules, registry v1, single indication (pilot cohort n≈50–100).¹⁵
• 3–9 months: Add LED routines, two indications, QR-linked claims pages with cohort dashboards.¹⁴
• 9–18 months: Algorithmic personalization, multi-brand data spine, external registry read-outs & claims refresh cadence. ¹⁵

Risks & Mitigations

• Over-personalization: Lock to on-label ranges, pre-approved guardrails.¹²
• Algorithmic bias: Publish parity dashboards, human-in-the-loop exceptions.⁶
• Ops complexity: Modularize SKUs, fix change windows, buffer hero inventory.¹⁵
• Privacy: Consent by purpose, local image processing, easy delete/export.⁵

Launching the DERMS Way

This case study outlines a doctor-led, anti-aging brand, integrating DERMS for evidence-native commercialization. It synthesizes a realistic path for a startup or legacy innovation cell to commercialize for instance, a novel ingredient peptide-based serum, blending supplier collaboration, measurable endpoints, responsible claims and platform hooks for post-launch learning.^4,6

Phase 1 DERMS Roadmap

This case synthesizes a realistic path a startup (or innovation cell inside a legacy company) could take to commercialize a peptide‑based serum while embodying DERMS. The strategy integrates supplier collaboration, measurable endpoints, responsible claims and platform hooks for post‑launch learning.

• Step 0 Ideation (D/M/E). Form the core team; shortlist suppliers; compile in-vitro/ex-vivo data for candidate peptides; define the product scope and mechanism hypothesis (e.g., pro-collagen signaling).
• Step 1 Blueprint (M/E/R). Align the active’s technology with the brand charter and supplier terms; draft initial formulation methods that respect peptide stability (pH, chelators, packaging); define consumer benefits as testable outcomes; refresh IP strategy (license or co-own).
• Step 2 Foundation (S/E). Launch an integrated product plan with supplier integration, success criteria (TEWL, elasticity, erythema deltas) and a risk register (supply, stability, regulatory boundaries).
• Step 3 Verification (E/R). Create stage-gate milestones; run in-vitro validation on the full formulation; plan the claims ladder and clinical translation boundaries; pre-register protocols and instrumentation.
• Step 4 Launch (S/R). Complete exploratory in-vivo pilot; secure scale budget; finalize formulation; initiate brand communications; compile a master MoCRA/EU dossier (safety files, labeling, cosmetovigilance).

Phase 2 P.E.P.T.I.D.E. Framework

• P—Plan & Prove the Concept. Define the primary concern (e.g., collagen loss); conduct competitive and consumer research; build a claims ladder linked to endpoints; recruit clinical and regulatory advisors.
• E—Engineer the Product. Select the peptide and supporting system (penetration enhancers, antioxidants); partner with a formulation lab; ensure stability and compatibility; run dermatological safety (patch) testing; evaluate IP options.
• P—Prepare for Production. Finalize formula/packaging; qualify suppliers and a contract manufacturer; set up MoCRA product listing/equivalents; secure product liability insurance; build audit-ready documentation.
• T—Test & Validate. Execute an instrumented consumer study and a controlled clinical (split-face when appropriate) with TEWL, erythema, tone, elasticity; gather dermatologist feedback; refine formulation or label language.
• I—Identify Brand & Market. Craft the doctor-led, evidence-native story; design inclusive identity and tone-aware education; map the initial channel mix (derm partners, DTC, select retail).
• D—Develop Operations. Launch e-commerce; integrate inventory and shipping; set up customer support; define metrics (adherence, repurchase, outcome deltas).
• E—Execute Launch & Expand. Build momentum with a hero serum; monitor reviews and outcomes; add formats (eye, mask) only after evidence accrues; expand by indication or tone cohort.

DERMS Stitches It Together. Diagnostics capture baselines and progress; Evidence matriculates from in-vitro to real-world registries; Responsibility governs tone-stratified analysis and compliant label language; Molecules (the peptide) provide tunable function; Systems integrate data, claims, and supply partners. The result is commercial storytelling that’s clinically defensible—the kind that retailers, clinicians, and regulators can support.^4,6

GuardrailS: Comparative Regulatory Deep Dive

Navigating the global regulatory landscape is critical for scaling dermatological beauty in 2025. As oversight tightens, leaders must embed compliance into their platforms to avoid costly penalties and build consumer trust. Across regions, the through-line is the same: truthful, adequately substantiated claims; documented safety; vigilant post-market monitoring. Cosmetics remain distinct from drugs, yet expectations for substantiation and record-keeping have risen. In response to MoCRA, leading companies are building dedicated cosmetovigilance teams and digital platforms to streamline adverse-event reporting and keep dossiers audit-ready.^1,17 (Table 3).

A Skin‑Intelligent Company

To thrive in 2025, cosmetic companies must shift from managing brands to orchestrating platforms that integrate science, data and compliance. The skin-intelligent company is built on six interconnected pillars, designed to compound learning and deliver measurable outcomes across markets and consumer cohorts. A durable operator aligns six pillars so that learning compounds across brands, cohorts and channels:

• Biotech ingredient engine. Pipeline of polypeptides, postbiotics and bio-identicals; co-owned IP with partners; quality systems for consistency.
• AI diagnostics & service layer. App + in-store scanners + tele-derm integrations; tone-aware quantification; adherence nudges.
• Unified data backbone. Privacy-safe plane linking diagnostics, purchase, usage, and outcomes; analytics for cohort-level insights.
• Adaptive formulation. Micro-batches, on-demand compounding and environmental tuning; rapid A/B testing tied to endpoints.
• Clinical claims factory. Protocol library, Contract Research Organization network, dashboards and region-mapped language; pre-registered endpoints (TEWL, erythema, tone, elasticity).
• Compliance-by-design. Safety substantiation, labeling, and cosmetovigilance embedded from day one; supplier diligence and traceability.

The central data backbone orchestrates signals between diagnostics, ingredient engine and adaptive formulation. The claims factory governs evidence from protocol design to substantiation. Compliance-by-design wraps the stack to keep every SKU and message audit-ready. Before the playbook comes the philosophy: measure what matters, design for reuse, and let evidence, not opinions, govern claims.^4,15

Equity & Inclusivity: Designing for Every Skin

Inclusivity is a strategic imperative, not a checkbox. As dermatological beauty converges with wellness, platforms must deliver equitable outcomes across diverse skin tones and conditions. Equity is not a marketing flourish; it is a performance requirement. Diagnostics must be trained on diverse, consented datasets (Fitzpatrick I–VI) and benchmarked with stratified metrics. Protocols should target tone-stratified enrollment and report improvement deltas by cohort rather than only overall means. Claims ladders should be inclusive by design, sequencing language from in-vitro mechanism to controlled trials and real-world evidence, with culturally relevant usage instructions and adverse-event monitoring tuned to cohort risk profiles. 

To deliver reproducible outcomes across populations, platforms must achieve algorithmic parity, mitigate diagnostic bias, and build inclusive claims ladders that reflect tone, age and condition variance. Train and validate computer-vision models on diverse datasets spanning Fitzpatrick I–VI, use tone-aware endpoints such as melanin index and PIH severity, and report improvement deltas by cohort. Align claim language with cohort-specific evidence and enroll underrepresented tones and ages in trials to improve external validity.^7,8,11

Digital Horizon

Today’s prevailing model excels at speed to shelf but struggles with proof at scale. Portfolio patchworks capture trends yet fragment evidence, raising compliance costs and eroding trust. In contrast, a DERMS-aligned platform converts every interaction, diagnostic, purchase, usage, into signal, helping teams decide what to formulate next, who to recruit into which study and how to evolve claims without regulatory drag. The digital flux of consumer behavior makes systems thinking non-optional. Products must plug into diagnostics; diagnostics must power claims; claims must be updateable as real-world evidence accrues. 

The DERMS approach insists on this end-to-end wiring. It asks leaders to replace trend calendars with research roadmaps; one-off campaigns with continuous care; and acquisition patchwork with platform design.

What works. Evidence-native operators are demonstrating durable gains: lower return rates, stronger repurchase and faster retail adoption, driven by consumer trust in validated outcomes.⁵ A shared lexicon of skin-quality metrics enables consumers, clinicians and regulators to talk about the same outcomes. Biotech provides functional levers that are programmable rather than extractive. AI and LEDs make progress measurable at home.^6,14,12

Current system struggles. Many portfolios remain collections of SKUs without a unifying science backbone. Claims work is often reactive, not programmatic. Diagnostic pipelines still exhibit tone bias in the wild. In R&D, reproducibility remains uneven: protocols aren’t always pre-registered; instrumentation varies; negative findings stay unpublished.^9,11

Why the “easy path” persists. Viral trends seem cheaper and faster than building a platform. In the short term they sometimes are. But the cost shows up later, inventory swings, eroding trust, claims risk and fragile lifetime value. The opportunity cost is large; the money spent chasing virality could be underwriting a claims ladder that compounds for years.⁵ The digital, clinical age requires new thinking. The DERMS approach insists on end-to-end wiring, replacing trend-chasing with research-driven care.⁵

Risks and Mitigations

Overclaiming. Anchor every line of label language to auditable evidence. Pre-clear with counsel; maintain evidence register and version-controlled claim-source maps.¹

• Algorithmic bias. Publish parity metrics; institute human-in-the-loop review for edge cases and retrain triggers when drift is detected.⁶
• Privacy & governance. Use privacy-by-design architectures; minimize data; provide transparent user control.⁵
• Reproducibility. Pre-register protocols; standardize instrumentation; publish negative findings; run registries linking adherence to outcomes.⁹

Risks remain in overclaiming around frontier inputs (e.g., exosomes), algorithmic bias in diagnostics and reproducibility gaps between trials and real-world use. Mitigations include pre-registered protocols, standardized instrumentation, tone-stratified analyses, negative-result publication, and a standing claims council spanning clinical, legal and marketing. Crucially, none of this requires boiling the ocean. Begin with one indication, stand up a micro-platform around it and scale only when evidence warrants. Operators taking this path will own the next era of dermatological beauty, not because they shouted loudest, but because they proved the most.

From Surface Care to Systemic Strategy

Dermatological beauty is a systems discipline blending biology, computation, design and governance into a single promise; consistent, measurable improvement in skin health. Companies that take the leap from imitation to integration will find that evidence is not a marketing accessory but a growth engine. When ingredient design, diagnostics, data and claims move in lockstep, a brand stops selling products and starts delivering outcomes. The transition is demanding. It asks leaders to replace portfolio patchwork with platforms, trend chasing with invention, and episodic campaigns with continuous care. Yet the path is clear. 

If you do only one thing next quarter, pick a single indication and build an end-to-end micro-platform around it: ingredient → diagnostic endpoint → protocol → pilot → claims ladder and publish the results. This single, repeatable template makes outcomes, not opinions, the center of gravity. That is how trust compounds and how the next generation of brand leaders will be made.

---

About the Author

Professor Ardeshir Bayat, MD PhD, is a physician-scientist and founder of InaDerma, a global consultancy advising pharma and cosmetic businesses on bioactives, development strategy, and claims, and Sensill, an AI-powered companion diagnostic company using biosensing to quantitatively detect skin health in real time. He also directs the MRC Dermatology lab at UCT, with 20+ years’ expertise, 520+ publications (H-index: 82), 50+ patents, and editorial roles in leading journals. For strategic collaboration or expert consultancy, reach out: connect@inaderma.com | www.sensill.ai | https://www.linkedin.com/in/ardeshir-bayat-md-phd-468811a

References

1. European Commission. (2009). Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on Cosmetic Products and Common Criteria. https://health.ec.europa.eu
2. Fortune Business Insights. (2025). Dermocosmetics Market Size, Share & Trends, 2025–2032. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/dermocosmetics-market-108947
3. Future Market Insights (FMI). (2024). Skincare Market Outlook, 2024–2035. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com
4. Grand View Research. (2024). Biotechnology Active Ingredients in Cosmetics—Market Size & Forecast. https://www.grandviewresearch.com
5. IQVIA Consumer Health. (2024). Beauty & Self-Care: Digital Trust and Omnichannel Behavior. https://www.iqvia.com
6. Humphrey S, Manson Brown S, Cross SJ, Mehta R. (2021). Defining Skin Quality: Clinical Relevance, Terminology, and Assessment. Dermatol Surg, 47(7), 974–981. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000003079
7. Krutmann J, Bouloc A, Sore G, Bernard BA, Passeron T. (2017). The Skin Aging Exposome. J Dermatol Sci, 85(3), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdermsci.2016.09.015
8. Lau M, Mineroff Gollogly J, Wang JY, Jagdeo J. (2024). Cosmeceuticals for Antiaging: Safety and Efficacy. Arch Dermatol Res, 316(5), 173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-02908-2
9. Lee J, Kwon KH. (2022a). Future Value and Direction of Cosmetics in the Era of Metaverse. J Cosmet Dermatol, 21(10), 4176–4183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.15276
10. Lee J, Kwon KH. (2022b). Novel Pathway Regarding Good Cosmetics Brands by NFT in the Metaverse World. J Cosmet Dermatol, 21(12), 6584–6593. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.15416
11. Lichterfeld-Kottner A, El Genedy M, Lahmann N, et al. (2020). Maintaining Skin Integrity in the Aged: A Systematic Review. Int J Nurs Stud, 103, 103509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103509
12. Lupo MP. (2007). Cosmeceutical Peptides. Dermatol Ther, 20(5), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8019.2007.00148.x
13. Market Research Future. (2025). AI in Skin Analysis: Market Forecast 2025–2034. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com
14. Ngoc LTN, Moon JY, Lee YC. (2023). Utilization of Light-Emitting Diodes for Skin Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed, 39(4), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpp.12841
15. Shen X, Song S, Chen N, Liao J, Zeng L. (2021). Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes: A Supernova in Cosmetic Dermatology. J Cosmet Dermatol, 20(12), 3812–3817. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.14438
16. Statista. (2025). Skin Care—Worldwide: Market Forecast. https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/beauty-personal-care/skin-care/worldwide
17. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2023). Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA)—Guidance & FAQs. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics
18. Zarbafian M, Fabi SG, Dayan S, Goldie K. (2022). The Emerging Field of Regenerative Aesthetics. Dermatol Surg, 48(1), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000003239