Histogen – TrichoScan analysis vs. side-by-side comparison

[534623]

I had 2 questions in this Histogen thread …

Anyway, here are the answers:


According to the inventor of the TrichoScan device (they also used this device during Histogen’s clinical trails) in this paper …

http://trichoscan.com/media/download...trichoscan.pdf

… the analyzed area in the pic is about 2 cm² and shows about 400 hairs. Due to the fact, that 1 so-called “follicular unit” consists of 1-4 hairs (mean = 2.5 hairs), the area in the pic shows about 160 FU’s (follicular units).

In addition, on TrichoScan’s website they explain …

http://trichoscan.com/pages/english/...n-research.php

… that especially for clinical trails and research results they use, in addition, a special “Research Software” – and according to the table below on this page, the “analysed area is up to 2 cm²”.

Conclusion
The analyzed areas of Histogen’s “macro-photos” show an AREA of about 2 cm² - right?

An average Caucasian has an FU-density of about 80 FU’s (+/-) per 1 cm² - at least within his occipital region - right? So if you count about twice as much FU’s within a given area (e.g. +/- 160 FU’s), we are talking about an analyzed area of about 2 cm² - right?

All in all, you can conclude that Histogen’s TricoScan macro-photos show an AREA of about 2 cm².

Yes, indeed …