Unveiling the Science: Inside L’Oréal’s Revolutionary Skincare Device

Las Vegas is incredibly parched. The dry winter atmosphere resulted in me awakening on Day 3 of CES 2025 with a nosebleed, cracked lips, and dry skin on my legs. This occurred despite applying two pumps of a fermented bean essence, eye cream, moisturizer, and a lip mask. Gazing at my reflection in the hotel mirror, I ponder whether any of those items are fulfilling their intended purpose — and whether I ought to consider an alternative.

This is the reason I felt such excitement to experience L’Oréal’s Cell BioPrint.

For anyone who has faced battles with their skin, the Cell BioPrint appears to be a groundbreaking device. This gadget serves as a mini-laboratory that assesses a skin sample to produce a report detailing your skin’s present state. It will also evaluate your skin regarding oiliness, wrinkles, skin barrier integrity, pore size, and uneven complexion. Depending on the proteins found in your skin, the device will indicate whether you might be prone to these concerns in the future — even if they’re not yet present. Additionally, the assessment reveals if you are responsive to retinol, a widely-used and extensively researched skincare component that often causes confusion among consumers.

In my demonstration, utilizing the Cell BioPrint was straightforward. Primarily because I didn’t need to do anything. While L’Oréal aspires to eventually develop the Cell BioPrint for home use, it is currently targeted toward retail, dermatological practices, and skincare establishments. In other words, the actual assessment will be performed by a qualified individual to guarantee precision. A L’Oréal representative collected samples from each of my cheeks using a specialized sticker. I observed as he dissolved it in a buffered solution, then placed the resulting mixture into a cartridge, which he subsequently inserted into a machine. I also had my cheeks and forehead scanned with an imaging device before responding to two questions regarding my age and demographic information.

A few minutes later, I was able to view my results. Apparently, I’m on the right track because the report indicated that my chronological and biological ages were in sync. However, it also noted that although my skin barrier function is presently adequate, I am biologically likely to experience issues with it as I age. My report also stated that I need not worry about pore size — neither now nor in the future, and that I am very responsive to retinol, suggesting that my skin will likely handle it well.

There were several additional insights that I won’t bore you with, but after examining my results, I have a clearer understanding of what I need to emphasize. For example, I should persist in using moisturizers enriched with ceramides, enhance my sun protection measures beyond just sunscreen, incorporate a vitamin C serum to improve my skin complexion, and introduce a retinol product. I also comprehend what I don’t require or can exclude from my regimen. For instance, I don’t need to invest in products aimed at minimizing pore appearance.

Much of this was not unexpected. My results mirrored the concerns I’ve noticed and where I typically direct my skincare efforts. For instance, the limited times I’ve experimented with retinol, I haven’t experienced even a hint of the sensitivities that seem to affect others.

Naturally, this

the nature of customized suggestions is only as solid as the research supporting it. After all, numerous health and beauty technology firms guarantee extraordinary results, but are deliberately vague when it comes to clarifying why they should be trusted. In the absence of regulatory validation (which is typically not a requirement for wellness and beauty technology), it falls to the consumer to attempt to determine if an explanation holds water.

With this in consideration, I requested L’Oréal to explore the science in detail — a request that Guive Balooch, global vice president of L’Oréal’s Technology Incubator, eagerly accepted.

Balooch mentions that the organization had 800 biologists engaged in (and releasing clinical research) to uncover whether specific proteins present in skin cells could indicate risk factors for certain dermatological issues. The difficulty, he notes, lies in the plethora of proteins the body generates. Identifying the few among the thousands that can provide practical skincare insights is akin to locating a small number of needles within an enormous haystack. It necessitated that L’Oréal’s scientists catalog all of them and then identify the pertinent biomarkers.

This specific area of research, according to Balooch, is referred to as proteomics — the exploration of how proteins are manifested throughout the body. “It’s recognizing that our cells every day are producing proteins. Depending on our lifestyle, geographical location, and genetic makeup, they may produce more or fewer of these proteins. This fluctuates over time and can be influenced by our habits as well.”

Balooch states that L’Oréal evaluated 4,000 individuals over a decade across the US, Europe, South America and Asia, discovering five proteins associated with skin health, including two that relate to how effectively a person’s skin responds to retinol. Although the Cell BioPrint can presently only assess responsiveness to retinol, other ingredients such as niacinamide and hyaluronic acid are also being tested.

From a cynical viewpoint, a device like this might also be interpreted as a pseudoscientific means to promote additional products to a demographic already inclined to spend. However, Balooch posits that the Cell BioPrint is not intended to drive people to make extra purchases.

“In some respects, it’s intended to inform people what not to purchase,” he explains. “Naturally, we would appreciate selling more products, but not through over-purchasing. That’s not actually beneficial for your skin. It’s about assisting individuals in identifying the proper products based on scientific data.”

To that point, Balooch makes a valid argument. The skincare market today is filled with false information and influencers advocating costly 10-step regimens that may sometimes do more harm than good. I’m aware of this, and yet I’m just as susceptible as any other skincare enthusiast. (I still have nightmares about the full bottle of snail mucin that influencers assured would solve all my issues. Instead, it caused a breakout.) Even now, I acknowledge that I might fall under influence once more. The distinction is that I can at least select to be swayed towards a retinol cream or vitamin C serum — products that have a higher likelihood of benefiting me — rather than squandering my funds aimlessly.