Control of wound contraction. Basic and clinical features.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a substantial amount of molecular and cellular data have been generated in an effort to understand the process of wound contraction and scar contracture formation, questions remain. What seems apparent is that the myofibroblast is not the only cell that generates contractile forces within wounds, but it does appear to be intrinsically linked to the development of hypertrophic scars. The supposition that the formation of scar contractures is solely the result of a continuation of wound contraction is an oversimplification. Figure 4 provides a model of the possible evolution of contractile forces during the wound healing process and their role in the development of scar contractures. Migration of fibroblasts into and through the extracellular matrix during the initial phase of wound healing, prior to the expression of alpha-SMA, appears to be a fundamental component of wound contraction. During this migration, the pulling of collagen fibrils into a streamlined pattern in their wake, and the associated production of collagenase, may facilitate a more normal arrangement of collagen. Once the wound has been repopulated and the chemotactic gradient that was established by inflammatory cells is decreased, fibroblast migration will cease. It is at this point that myofibroblasts appear and play a key role in the production of hypertrophic scars, given that their prolonged presence and over-representation are hallmarks of this pathology. One of the pivotal differences between wounds that proceed to normal scar compared with those that develop hypertrophic scars and scar contractures may be a lack (or late induction) of myofibroblast apoptotic cell death. The combined contribution of fibroblasts and myofibroblasts to abnormal extracellular matrix protein production results in an excessive and rigid scar. The isometric application of contractile forces by myofibroblasts probably contributes to the formation of the whorls, nodules, and scar contractures characteristic of hypertrophic scars. Because the prolonged presence of myofibroblasts, producing an imbalance in extracellular matrix proteins and proteases, probably exacerbates hypertrophic scars and wound contraction, accelerating the rate of apoptotic cell death to reduce the cell number to that seen in normal scar may be a useful strategy for providing effective and efficient treatment of scar contracture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".