01 · Evidence context
What the rating actually records
The study considered grades 0-1 not significant within its own model. That classification is limited to the tested raw material and does not prove how a particular person, concentration, or finished product responds.
The number is retained as a historical observation. The site does not convert it into a current clinical probability or a complete-product grade.
02 · Formulation context
Why the complete formula can differ
Labels may use Ricinus Communis Seed Oil. Hydrogenated castor oil and PEG castor oils have separate records, so the checker keeps those chemically distinct names separate instead of inheriting castor oil’s result.
03 · Practical takeaway
How to use this result proportionately
A low historical score can reduce concern but cannot rule out irritation, allergy, or an individual reaction. Patch testing and gradual routine changes are more informative than the number alone.
If you compare products, change one routine variable at a time and use the label from the product currently in hand.
04 · Primary source
Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products
Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 40, 321-333 · Primary rabbit-ear screening study
Ingredients were generally tested at 10% in a rabbit-ear model. The paper calls the assay extremely sensitive, reports source and vehicle effects, and says the survey is not definitive or a substitute for finished-formula and human evidence.
Open source record ↗