This is the second part of a 4-part podcast series featuring Cédric Guiard, CEO of Cydolia, and Hugo Le Calvez, CMO of Cydolia. You can watch the full podcast here.
Hugo Le Calvez (CMO, Cydolia):
As explained, 3D approach is 70% faster. But one question remains. Do we lose quality or precision in the data by opting for this speed?
Why 3D Clinical Studies Are More Accurate
Cédric Guiard (CEO, Cydolia):
Quite the contrary, Hugo. To understand this, we need to revisit the real problem we’re trying to solve: evaluating subtle product benefits.
These benefits, such as those from an anti-aging serum, can focus on changes below 100 microns. Now, here’s the challenge. Even slight differences in facial positioning or natural variations in expression during traditional measurements can result in discrepancies of over 0.2 millimeters.
It’s nearly impossible to consistently replicate the exact position and expression of a subject at multiple measurement points during traditional clinical studies.
How 3D Technology Solves These Challenges
Cédric: That’s why we take a different approach. Instead of analyzing raw measurements from each acquisition, we create 3D reconstructions of the face.
These 3D models allow us to parameterize all physical properties—such as texture, morphology, and optical features—at every point on the face. The key innovation here is that our system ensures consistency. Regardless of a subject’s morphology, pose, or expression, features like the corner of the eyes, the tip of the nose, or the corner of the lips are mapped to the same exact location on the model every time.
This precise parameterization enables us to compare data accurately and establish the true benefits of the product.
Real-World Impact of 3D Accuracy
Hugo: That level of accuracy is impressive. For sensitive parameters like wrinkles, I imagine this must make a huge difference.
Cédric: It absolutely does. Just recently, one of our clients shared a set of before-and-after photos showcasing a supposed product effect. At first glance, the results looked significant.
However, closer inspection revealed that the perceived improvement was due to differences in the subject’s expression—like frowning or slight eye closure—which can significantly affect areas like the forehead or crow’s feet.
Our 3D technology eliminates these inconsistencies by ensuring that we measure changes under identical conditions, providing an exact and reliable comparison.
Conclusion
Hugo: Thank you, Cédric, for clarifying how your approach not only speeds up clinical studies but also enhances accuracy. It’s fascinating to see how this technology is solving some of the industry’s biggest challenges.
Cédric: My pleasure, Hugo. We’re committed to providing innovative solutions that empower our clients to deliver reliable, effective products.
Hugo: Thank you to everyone listening. Stay tuned for more insights into the future of cosmetics testing!
