As R&D Director at Complife Group, Dr. Vincenzo Nobile brings extensive expertise in cosmetic science, claim consultancy, and advanced product testing. With a strong scientific background and a focus on innovation, he specializes in developing effective and cost-efficient testing strategies, with particular expertise in sunscreen efficacy, product performance, and regulatory compliance. Dr. Nobile works at the intersection of cosmetic science, regulatory requirements, and strategic decision-making, overseeing how efficacy, safety, and performance data are generated, interpreted, and defended. His work focuses on translating scientific evidence into robust claim substantiation, supporting product development, regulatory compliance, and credible communication to the market.
Why do you think cosmetic brands are more and more interested in biometric evaluations?
Biometric evaluations are becoming increasingly important because they allow brands to move beyond perceived benefits and demonstrate product performance through objective, quantifiable, and scientifically supported evidence.
This is particularly relevant today because consumers are much more informed and, as a result, they are also more demanding. They increasingly expect cosmetic claims to be supported by solid and credible scientific evidence. To meet this expectation, brands need methods that can objectively demonstrate product performance, and this is where biometric evaluation becomes essential.
Biometric techniques allow us to measure changes that are not always easy to see with the naked eye or capture through subjective evaluation alone. These changes may involve skin hydration, barrier function, elasticity, microstructure and, with more advanced technologies, even deeper structural or biological effects.
Once these changes can be measured objectively, we can go one step further. Biometric evaluation does not only tell us whether a product works but can also help us understand how quickly the effect appears, how long it lasts and, in some cases, the functional or biological mechanisms behind that effect.
This deeper level of understanding is extremely valuable for brands because it creates a direct link between scientific evidence and product communication. Robust data can be translated into clear, credible and differentiating claims. At the same time, stronger claim substantiation enhances brand credibility and ultimately reinforces consumer trust.
Which claims do you consider most important to validate scientifically in 2026?
In 2026, the most important claims to validate scientifically are those that go beyond a simple cosmetic effect and describe how a product supports the skin’s function, resilience and long-term quality.
Skin longevity and healthy-aging claims are becoming particularly important, together with claims related to skin barrier strengthening, recovery and resilience. Microbiome-related claims are another key area, because brands increasingly want to demonstrate that their products can support the natural balance of the skin ecosystem.
I would also include protection and recovery from environmental stressors, such as UV radiation, pollution or other exposome factors, as well as long-lasting performance claims.
Another important trend is the growing interest in claims linked to deeper and more specific biological processes, for example collagen organization, epidermal homeostasis, oxidative stress response or hydration at different skin depths. These claims are particularly relevant because they allow brands to move from a generic efficacy message to a more precise and scientifically differentiated positioning.
What is changing is the level of evidence expected. It is no longer enough to say that a product works. Brands increasingly want to quantify the effect, understand how quickly it appears, how long it lasts and, whenever possible, demonstrate the biological mechanism behind it.
This is also changing the way studies are designed. We are moving toward more integrated approaches, combining clinical evaluation, instrumental biometry, advanced imaging and molecular techniques to provide a more complete picture of product performance.
In the context of longevity-focused skincare, what distinctions do you make when evaluating different claims related to anti-aging, wrinkles, and firmness improvement?
In longevity-focused skincare, it is very important not to treat all anti-aging claims as equivalent.
“Anti-aging” is a very broad umbrella term. From a scientific perspective, it should be translated into specific and measurable effects, such as improvements in wrinkles, firmness, elasticity, hydration, barrier function or skin structure.
Wrinkle claims are mainly related to changes in skin surface topography and can be evaluated by imaging and 3D profilometry, looking at parameters such as wrinkle depth, volume or area.
Firmness claims are different because they refer primarily to the biomechanical behavior of the skin. Here, we evaluate parameters such as distensibility, elasticity and the ability of the skin to recover after deformation.
Longevity-related claims are broader still. They are not simply about making the skin look younger, but about maintaining skin function, resilience and structural quality over time. This may involve assessing barrier integrity, hydration, biomechanical properties, dermal organization or the skin’s ability to recover from environmental stress.
So, for me, the key point is that each claim should be translated into a specific biological or functional endpoint and supported with the most appropriate methodology. This makes the claim more precise, more scientifically credible and more meaningful for the consumer.
How do you think the in vivo evaluation of this “longevity” claim should be conducted by testing laboratories today?
The first step is to clearly define what we mean by “longevity”, because it cannot be evaluated with a single parameter.
A traditional anti-aging study may focus on wrinkles or firmness, while a longevity study should take a much more multidimensional approach. We should evaluate not only how the skin looks, but also how well it maintains its function, structure and resilience over time.
This means combining different levels of assessment: skin barrier function and hydration, biomechanical properties such as firmness and elasticity, skin surface and dermal structure through advanced imaging, and potentially selected biological biomarkers associated with skin aging.
I also think resilience is particularly important. Instead of looking only at improvement from baseline, we can evaluate how effectively the skin responds to and recovers from controlled external stress. This gives us a more dynamic picture of skin functionality.
Another important point is time. Longevity is intrinsically a longitudinal concept, so ideally studies should include repeated measurements over longer periods rather than relying only on short-term before-and-after evaluations.
Today, we can therefore substantiate specific dimensions of skin longevity, such as maintaining skin function, improving resilience or preserving structural quality. But we need to be cautious with very broad claims such as “reversing skin age” unless we have validated biomarkers and a study design capable of truly demonstrating that effect.
For testing laboratories, the challenge is to move from measuring isolated signs of aging to building an integrated picture of how well the skin preserves its quality and functionality over time.
Which in vivo biometrological testing methods do you consider best suited to current innovation trends in dermocosmetics?
The in vivo methods that are best suited to current innovation trends in dermocosmetics are those that are non-invasive, quantitative and able to investigate the skin at different levels.
Traditional biometrological techniques remain essential. Measurements of hydration, transepidermal water loss, skin biomechanics and color provide very robust and reproducible endpoints. But today, innovation is increasingly coming from advanced imaging and spectroscopy.
For example, LC-OCT allows us to visualize and quantify the skin microstructure in three dimensions, while high-frequency ultrasound provides information on deeper dermal structure and density. Confocal Raman spectroscopy is particularly interesting because it adds a molecular dimension, allowing us to investigate hydration, NMF, skin composition and even the penetration of cosmetic ingredients. Raman spectroscopy is especially promising because it allows us to move beyond structural imaging and investigate the molecular composition of the skin in vivo, providing information on endogenous components and on the distribution and penetration of cosmetic ingredients.
I also see a strong trend toward standardized digital imaging, 3D skin topography and AI-assisted image analysis, which allow us to extract increasingly sophisticated and objective endpoints.
Another very promising approach is transcriptomics. By evaluating changes in gene-expression profiles, transcriptomic analysis can provide insight into the biological pathways modulated by a cosmetic product and help us better understand its mechanism of action. This is particularly relevant for emerging areas such as skin longevity, barrier resilience, inflammation and environmental stress response.
So, rather than relying on a single technology, I think the future is multimodal: combining classical biometrology with advanced imaging and molecular techniques to connect what we see clinically with what is happening functionally and structurally within the skin.
