SeneGence® EyeCrème

EyeCrème: greater radiance and improved-looking crow’s feet by Week 8.

By SeneGence · Updated October 30, 2026

Independent expert grading documented progressive improvement in eye-area radiance and crow’s-feet appearance, supported by strong participant perceptions of brighter, smoother, more rested-looking eyes.

31 completed8 weeksExpert grading + participant perception

20.21%

improvement in eye-area radiance

Week 8

Expert grading, n=31; p<0.001.

87.10%

of participants improved in radiance

Week 8

Expert grading, n=31.

83.87%

said lines and wrinkles looked diminished

Week 8

Participant perception, n=31.

Eye-area results

EyeCrème study results

EyeCrème expert-graded radiance and crow’s-feet results, followed by participant perceptions in the same dossier. — In the independent eight-week EyeCrème study, 32 enrolled and 31 completed, ages 48–70. Expert grading versus baseline found mean radiance improvement of 14.51% at week 6 and 20.21% at week 8, and 9.15% improvement in crow’s-feet appearance at week 8. At week 8, 87.10% improved in radiance. In the same study’s week-eight participant perceptions (n=31), 83.87% agreed lines and wrinkles looked diminished, 80.65% looked more rested, and 77.42% each looked brighter, smoother and more awake.

Visible eye-area results

Versus baseline, expert-graded radiance improved 14.51% at Week 6 and 20.21% at Week 8.

Radiance - expert-graded mean improvement20.21%

Week 8, n=31; p<0.001.

Crow’s-feet appearance - expert-graded mean improvement9.15%

Week 8, n=31; p<0.001.

Participants who improved in radiance87.10%

Week 8, n=31.

80.65%said the eye area looked more rested.

77.42%said the eye area looked brighter.

77.42%said the eye area looked smoother.

77.42%said the eye area looked more awake.

Two complementary lenses

Expert grades quantify visible appearance; participant percentages report self-perception. These results are presented separately so each claim keeps its proper evidence source.

Technical study record

The strongest substantiation is expert-graded visible appearance.

Independent laboratoryValidated Claim Support, LLC

Tested productEyeCrème

Design8-week single-arm baseline comparison

Population32 enrolled; 31 completed; ages 48-70

VisitsBaseline, immediate, Week 6, Week 8

EvidenceExpert grading, Corneometer, Glossymeter, Visioscan, photography, questionnaire

Source date13 July 2022

Expert-graded appearance (n=31)

Expert endpoint	Week 6	Week 8
Radiance	14.51% improvement; 67.74% improved; p<0.001	20.21% improvement; 87.10% improved; p<0.001
Crow’s-feet appearance	5.49% improvement; 29.03% improved; p=0.001	9.15% improvement; 41.94% improved; p<0.001

Lower grades indicate improvement.

Scope of instrumental support

Instrument endpoint	Finding	Interpretation
Corneometer hydration	Immediate -9.11%; p=0.049; Week 6 -5.98%; p=0.248; Week 8 -1.71%; p=0.734	Did not substantiate improved hydration
Glossymeter shine	Immediate -29.62%; p<0.001	Did not substantiate increased shine
Visioscan SEw wrinkles	Week 6 +7.63%; p=0.452; Week 8 -2.92%; p=0.741	Week 8 favorable direction; not statistically significant

The report therefore leads with expert-graded radiance and crow’s-feet appearance, not instrument hydration, shine, or wrinkle claims.

Study application

Thirty-one participants completed the study. Results apply to EyeCrème under the reported eight-week study design.

Independent laboratory evidence

Original source pages follow.

View the complete source record.

Selected original VCS pages follow, preserving the signed study summary, methods, aggregate results, conclusion, and Quality Assurance record while excluding participant-level material.

The complete PDF pairs this consumer summary with the selected independent laboratory source pages.

Open full PDF + laboratory source

LaboratoryValidated Claim Support, LLC

Source date13 July 2022

AuthenticationDigital investigator + QA signatures

Source authentication

The final report contains dated digital Quality Assurance and Principal Investigator signatures dated 13 July 2022.

Independent laboratory source pages are included in the complete PDF. Participant-identifying information has been removed where indicated; aggregate findings are unchanged.