How We Grade the Evidence Behind Our Ingredients

Most skincare marketing uses the phrase "clinically proven" as if it means one thing. It does not. A single open-label study on eight participants and a replicated randomised controlled trial across four hundred are both routinely described the same way on a product label.

Dr Alison Jamieson does not select ingredients that way. Every active considered for the Aliangé range is assessed against a published evidence hierarchy before it reaches a formulation, and that hierarchy is worth explaining, because it is the reason some ingredients sit in every protocol and others are used more selectively.

The Three Evidence Tiers We Use

High evidence means an ingredient has been tested in multiple randomised controlled trials, often replicated by different research groups, with a mechanism that is well understood and consistently reproduced. This is the strongest tier of clinical evidence available for a topical ingredient.

Moderate evidence means at least one adequately designed controlled trial exists, alongside a plausible and generally accepted mechanism of action. The research base is real but still growing.

Emerging evidence means the underlying biology is compelling and early data is promising, but the ingredient has not yet been tested at the scale or replication of an established active. This is where genuinely new skincare science tends to sit before it matures.

None of these tiers are a verdict on whether an ingredient works. They describe how much has been proven, not how much has been claimed.

High Evidence: Decades of Data

Niacinamide, the core active in Biocinamide Serum, is one of the most extensively studied ingredients in topical dermatology. Multiple controlled trials support its role in strengthening barrier function and calming inflammation.

Retinol, used in Ultimate A Night Cream, has the longest and deepest evidence base of any corrective skincare ingredient, with decades of trial data behind its role in collagen stimulation and cell turnover.

Glycolic and lactic acid, used across the Transforming Exfoliator and Brightening Serum, are supported by a similarly long trial history for resurfacing and cell turnover.

Daily SPF, formulated into Day Cream SPF 15, sits in this tier on the strength of the Nambour Skin Cancer Prevention Trial. It remains the largest and longest randomised trial ever conducted on sunscreen and visible skin ageing, which is why sun protection is never optional inside a protocol.

Moderate Evidence: A Growing Trial Base

Bakuchiol, paired with retinol in Ultimate A Night Cream, currently has one landmark head-to-head randomised controlled trial against retinol. One well-designed trial is real evidence. It is not yet the replicated evidence base that niacinamide or retinol carry, which is why bakuchiol is formulated alongside retinol rather than positioned as a standalone replacement for it.

Peptide complexes, including the multi-pathway peptide blend in Jellyfish Peptide X Antioxidant Serum and Day Cream SPF 15, have a well-understood mechanism of action but a research base that is still expanding beyond manufacturer-sponsored studies.

Lactococcus Ferment Lysate, the postbiotic used in Biocinamide Serum and the Probiotic Masque, has controlled trial data supporting barrier-function improvement, with research continuing to build around microbiome-focused actives generally.

Emerging Evidence: Compelling Biology, Early Data

Exosomes, used in CellRevive Exosome Cream, represent genuine cellular-signalling science. Human clinical trials are underway, but the evidence base has not yet reached the scale or replication of an established active like niacinamide.

Jellyfish-derived peptide technology, formulated into the Jellyfish Peptide X Antioxidant Serum, is built on a promising DNA-repair mechanism. Current support is largely laboratory and manufacturer data, which places it honestly in this tier rather than the high-evidence category.

Ingredients in this tier are not weaker choices. They are simply newer, and Aliangé discloses that rather than dressing an emerging active in high-evidence language.

Where Clinical Judgement Fits

Published trials cannot cover every skin type, climate, or combination of actives a patient presents with. That gap is where Dr Alison Jamieson's forty years treating Australian skin does its work: not as a replacement for published evidence, but as the clinical judgement that decides how an ingredient is dosed, sequenced, and combined inside a protocol.

This is also why Aliangé formulates in protocols rather than single hero products. A moderate or emerging-evidence active is never asked to carry a routine on its own. It sits alongside high-evidence actives, so the formulation as a whole is never resting entirely on the newest, least-tested ingredient in it.

Common Questions

Does "emerging evidence" mean an ingredient doesn't work?
No. It means the research base is still accumulating. The underlying biology is genuinely promising, but it has not yet been tested at the scale of a decades-old active like retinol or niacinamide.

Why formulate with anything below the high-evidence tier at all?
Because waiting for every active to reach decades of replicated trial data would exclude legitimate, well-reasoned science. The safeguard is sequencing: moderate and emerging actives are always formulated alongside high-evidence ingredients, never in isolation.

How often is this grading reviewed?
As new peer-reviewed research is published. An ingredient's tier is not fixed. Bakuchiol, for example, has moved from emerging to moderate evidence as trial data has accumulated, and that pattern will continue.

Evidence grading is one part of how Dr Jamieson decides what earns a place in the AM and PM Protocols. For a closer look at how to read a clinical trial claim on its own terms, see what a clinical trial actually tells you about your skincare. To see the full sequencing logic in practice, explore The Protocol.