Clinical Evidence

Adipeau Volume Cream and Adipeau Strength Gel are the first cosmetic products with a patented approach formulated to target the appearance of skin through dermal adipose tissue (US 12,226,517 B2). Informed by peer-reviewed research published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (PMID: 32914326) and laboratory research in collaboration with the Karolinska Institute, the evidence below documents visible appearance changes in skin contour, firmness, and fullness observed across five independent datasets: two registered clinical trials (NCT04769193, ISRCTN14923731), a pilot cohort study with blinded independent evaluators, professional aesthetician documentation, and user-submitted photography.

Does Adipeau work?

Cosmetic brands often answer this question with a handful of before-and-after images showing unrelated kinds of improvement—such as a less puffy eyelid, a softer wrinkle, or smoother-looking tone. They may also refer to a clinical study that measured multiple unrelated outcomes without pre-specifying a primary endpoint.

We’ve done something different.

This page examines one unifying visual outcome—contour smoothness—across a large number of data points from three clinical studies with pre-specified endpoints, and then shows how that same outcome is reflected in real-world use. We invite you to review the methodology step by step, but you can also go directly to the galleries.

This page brings together 40 before-and-after observations across five datasets to evaluate a single visual outcome: contour smoothness.

Contour smoothness refers to how continuous and even surface contours appear, with fewer visible interruptions or abrupt changes in curvature. This visual outcome is consistent with the biological framework described on the Science page and reflects the type of appearance change that framework would be expected to produce.

This allows all images on this page to be evaluated using the same visual framework.

This outcome was defined in advance as a primary endpoint in three clinical studies, where it is evaluated using pre-specified, study-specific measures. It is also reflected in two real-world datasets.

How the data is structured and evaluated

Consistent evaluation across datasets

The data on this page represents repeated evaluation of the same visual outcome—contour smoothness—across different conditions and measurement approaches.

The evidence comes from five independent datasets, each providing a different context:

  • Clinical studies: prospectively registered with pre-specified primary endpoints
  • Cohort study: prospective evaluation with a defined endpoint
  • Aesthetician data: real-world use under professional conditions
  • Consumer data: real-world use under everyday conditions

Each dataset applies its own measurement approach:

  • The facial clinical study uses objective three-dimensional measurements of surface contours
  • The body clinical study and cohort study include blinded image evaluations
  • The clinical studies and cohort study include pre-specified statistical analyses

Despite these differences, all datasets evaluate the same underlying visual outcome: contour smoothness.

Because the same outcome is assessed across independent contexts and measurement approaches, the full set of images can be viewed as a series of independent observations of the same visual signal, rather than isolated examples.

Alignment of endpoints across studies

The clinical and cohort studies use different terminology, but their pre-specified primary endpoints evaluate related aspects of the same visual outcome.

  • The facial study evaluates volume increases and decreases, corresponding to changes in contour uniformity
  • The cohort study evaluates cellulite severity, reflecting visible surface irregularity
  • The body study uses the Merz cellulite dimpling scale, a measure of surface contour variation

These endpoints were defined in advance and represent independent ways of measuring the same underlying construct: contour smoothness.

Because the outcome is assessed through independent, pre-specified endpoints across studies, the observed pattern does not depend on a single measurement approach or post hoc selection of results.

Dataset descriptions

The data on this page is grouped into five datasets:

RCT1 (facial clinical study)
Registered clinical study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04769193) evaluating facial contour changes after 6 months of treatment with the volume cream.

RCT2 (body clinical study)
Registered clinical study (ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN14923731) evaluating cellulite severity after 3 months of treatment with the strength gel.

PC (pilot cohort study)
Prospective cohort study evaluating cellulite severity after 3 months of treatment with the strength gel.

ADS (aesthetician dataset)
Images contributed by aestheticians using the strength gel and volume cream under professional conditions.

UDS (user dataset)
Images contributed by consumers using the strength gel and volume cream under real-world conditions.

Each dataset represents a different context in which the same visual outcome is evaluated.

What this evidence shows—and what it does not

This evidence shows:

  • A consistent visual pattern across multiple datasets
  • Similar directional changes across controlled and real-world conditions
  • Convergence of independently defined endpoints on the same outcome
  • Consistency of the same outcome across independent measurement approaches

This evidence does not establish:

  • Outcomes under randomized controlled conditions
  • The underlying biological mechanism
  • Uniform results across all individuals

How to read the data

Each image on this page is evaluated using a consistent framework for assessing contour smoothness.

Face

Contour smoothness is evaluated across two components:

Vertical contour balance
The overall curvature from the under-eye area through the cheek to the jawline.
A smoother contour appears as a continuous transition without abrupt concavity or bulging.

Horizontal contour continuity
The smoothness of transitions across the face, particularly from the mid-cheek to the nasolabial region and from below the cheek to the mouth.
A smoother contour shows clearer, more even transitions without sharp interruptions.

Body

Contour smoothness is evaluated across two components:

Indentation depth
The depth and prominence of visible depressions.

Indentation continuity
The extent to which indentations create interruptions or irregular transitions across the surface.

How representative are these images?

A common concern with before-and-after images is whether they are selectively chosen.

The images on this page are drawn from the full set of datasets currently available. No completed datasets have been excluded.

The degree of representativeness varies by dataset:

RCT1 (facial clinical study)
Representativeness can be assessed quantitatively. The study measured changes in skin contour as cumulative pixel height increases and decreases.

Across the full study population, average changes were increases of 1.56 mm³ and decreases of 0.83 mm³ per side.

The images shown here correspond to subjects with average changes of 0.96 mm³ (increases) and 0.70 mm³ (decreases) per side, indicating outcomes within the range observed in the study population.

RCT2 (cellulite dimpling study)
A total of 11 subjects completed the study. The images shown represent all eleven subjects.

Pilot cohort study (cellulite severity study)
Comparable before-and-after images were available for 10 of 17 subjects, as determined by independent raters.

The images shown represent 6 of these 10 subjects and include a range of baseline cellulite severity (mild, moderate, and severe).

Aesthetician data
The images shown represent more than 80% of available before-and-after cases obtained under professional conditions.

Consumer data
The images are selected from a larger pool of submitted results and are intended to reflect outcomes similar to those observed in the clinical datasets, rather than extreme examples.

A breast skin cohort study is currently in progress and is not included here.

Registered Clinical Study Examples (RCT-1)

Cellulite Study Examples (RCT-2)

Pilot Cohort Examples

Aesthetician Generated Examples

User-submitted Examples

How Adipeau should be compared to alternatives

Before-and-after images alone are not a strong basis for comparing products. A more meaningful comparison asks whether the evidence follows a prospective clinical logic.

When evaluating Adipeau alongside other products, the key questions are:

  • Was the study prospectively registered?
  • Was a primary endpoint specified in advance?
  • Did the reported results correspond to that endpoint?
  • Was a confirmatory study also prospectively registered and evaluated using a related primary endpoint?
  • Are the measured outcomes consistent with the biology the product is intended to address?
  • Are image selection and representativeness clearly explained?
  • Is the same outcome also reflected in real-world use?

These factors matter because prospectively defined endpoints and registered studies reduce the risk that results are selected after the fact based on what appears most favorable.

Adipeau’s evidence is structured to allow this type of evaluation. This page defines a single visual outcome, explains how it is interpreted, includes clinical studies with pre-specified endpoints, and shows how the same outcome is reflected across additional datasets.

This does not establish superiority to any specific alternative. It does provide a more structured basis for comparison than before-and-after examples presented without a defined outcome, endpoint framework, or selection context.

Clinical Evidence FAQs

What clinical research has Adipeau conducted?

Adipeau’s evidence base spans five independent datasets: registered clinical study (NCT04769193) with automated 3D surface imaging, a blinded observational cohort, a registered split-leg study using the Merz Cellulite Dimpling Scale (ISRCTN14923731), aesthetician documentation, and user-submitted imagery. Research has been published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery in collaboration with the Karolinska Institute. See our Science page and Study Index for the full citation library.

How were Adipeau's results measured?

Adipeau uses complementary measurement approaches ranging from instrumental imaging and standardized clinical grading to blinded image evaluation. The registered clinical study used automated 3D imaging software to quantify surface displacement and volumetric contour change. Observational studies were assessed by independent blinded evaluators. All datasets evaluate the same core appearance variables: contour smoothness, surface uniformity, and distributed firmness.

Are the before-and-after photos real?

Adipeau’s images are drawn from five independent datasets, and each includes methodological notes describing how images were collected, handled, and evaluated. No color correction, filtering, or enhancement is performed by the company. Clinical study images used automated 3D alignment and standardized lighting. Professional and user-submitted images are presented as received. Potential sources of variability, including lighting and camera angle differences, are disclosed for each dataset.

What is the Adipeau clinical study?

Adipeau registered a clinical study under NCT04769193 to evaluate facial contour changes using automated three-dimensional surface imaging. The study enrolled 35 participants ranging in age from 25 to 70 years. Planned enrollment was 75, but recruitment was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study evaluated contour smoothness, surface uniformity, and distributed firmness. See the methodological notes above for statistical methods and study limitations.

What is "facial fat fitness"?

Adipeau’s founder Ivan Galanin introduced the concept of “facial fat fitness” in a peer-reviewed paper published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (PMID 32914326), proposing that the fitness of dermal fat cells determines the fullness and strength of the curves in the face. The research suggests that dermal adipocyte size, not quantity, is associated with skin appearance and quality. The concept provides the scientific framework described on our Science page.

Can a topical product really affect how skin looks?

Adipeau is a cosmetic skincare product, and topical cosmetics are formulated to improve the appearance of skin. This page presents observational evidence across multiple independent datasets documenting appearance patterns during use. Measurement approaches range from automated 3D surface imaging to blinded evaluation and standardized clinical grading, all evaluating the same visible surface variables: contour smoothness, overall uniformity of the skin surface, and distributed firmness. The datasets allow readers to consider whether the observed patterns are consistent with the biological framework described on our Science page. See our Resources page for best practices.

Ready to Try