MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025072094 · doi:10.1155/2013/146764

Complements and the Wound Healing Cascade: An Updated Review

2013· article· en· W2025072094 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWound healingMedicineInflammationComplement (music)AugmentWound careIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsSurgeryImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wound healing is a complex pathway of regulated reactions and cellular infiltrates. The mechanisms at play have been thoroughly studied but there is much still to learn. The health care system in the USA alone spends on average 9 billion dollars annually on treating of wounds. To help reduce patient morbidity and mortality related to abnormal or prolonged skin healing, an updated review and understanding of wound healing is essential. Recent works have helped shape the multistep process in wound healing and introduced various growth factors that can augment this process. The complement cascade has been shown to have a role in inflammation and has only recently been shown to augment wound healing. In this review, we have outlined the biology of wound healing and discussed the use of growth factors and the role of complements in this intricate pathway.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · 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