MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tissue engineering of skin and cornea

2010· review· en· W1942437020 on OpenAlexafffund
Claudie Paquet, Danielle Larouche, Francis Bisson, Stéphanie Proulx, Carolyne Simard‐Bisson, Manon Gaudreault, Hubert Robitaille, Patrick Carrier, L Duranceau, François A. Auger, Julie Fradette, Sylvain L. Guérin, Lucie Germain

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de MontréalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersInstitute of Musculoskeletal Health and ArthritisCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsKeratinStem cellCell biologyTissue engineeringSenescenceBiologyTranscription factorHuman skinEpitheliumImmunologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human beings are greatly preoccupied with the unavoidable nature of aging. While the biological processes of senescence and aging are the subjects of intense investigations, the molecular mechanisms linking aging with disease and death are yet to be elucidated. Tissue engineering offers new models to study the various processes associated with aging. Using keratin 19 as a stem cell marker, our studies have revealed that stem cells are preserved in human skin reconstructed by tissue engineering and that the number of epithelial stem cells varies according to the donor's age. As with skin, human corneas can also be engineered in vitro. Among the epithelial cells used for reconstructing skin and corneas, significant age-dependent variations in the expression of the transcription factor Sp1 were observed. Culturing skin epithelial cells with a feeder layer extended their life span in culture, likely by preventing Sp1 degradation in epithelial cells, therefore demonstrating the pivotal role played by this transcription factor in cell proliferation. Finally, using the human tissue-engineered skin as a model, we linked Hsp27 activation with skin differentiation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207