01 · Evidence context
What the rating actually records
The result concerns squalane, not every similarly named lipid. The historical model screened follicular keratinisation in rabbits and was not designed to predict every modern formulation or individual facial response.
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
Squalane and squalene are different materials and must not be merged by fuzzy text matching. Source, purity, concentration, and the complete product vehicle remain outside the information available on a label.
03 · Practical takeaway
How to use this result proportionately
Interpret the low score as limited historical evidence, then give more weight to the complete formula and your own repeated experience. Stop and seek care if a reaction is severe or persistent.
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 ↗