Cutaneous wound healing: recruiting developmental pathways for regeneration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following a skin injury, the damaged tissue is repaired through the coordinated biological actions that constitute the cutaneous healing response. In mammals, repaired skin is not identical to intact uninjured skin, however, and this disparity may be caused by differences in the mechanisms that regulate postnatal cutaneous wound repair compared to embryonic skin development. Improving our understanding of the molecular pathways that are involved in these processes is essential to generate new therapies for wound healing complications. Here we focus on the roles of several key developmental signaling pathways (Wnt/β-catenin, TGF-β, Hedgehog, Notch) in mammalian cutaneous wound repair, and compare this to their function in skin development. We discuss the varying responses to cutaneous injury across the taxa, ranging from complete regeneration to scar tissue formation. Finally, we outline how research into the role of developmental pathways during skin repair has contributed to current wound therapies, and holds potential for the development of more effective treatments.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it