MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064336822 · doi:10.1089/wound.2012.0362

The Contribution of Peroxisome Proliferator–Activated Receptor Gamma to Cutaneous Wound Healing

2013· review· en· W2064336822 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Leask

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Wound Care · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyofibroblastWound healingMedicinePeroxisome proliferator-activated receptorIn vivoTransforming growth factorFibrosisReceptorCancer researchPathologyInternal medicineBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance: Cutaneous tissue repair involves an initial inflammatory phase, followed by a fibroproliferative phase and finally by a resolution phase. Failure to initiate fibroblast recruitment during the fibroproliferative phase results in chronic wounds, whereas failure to terminate the fibroproliferative phase results in fibroproliferative disorders. Thus, understanding how to regulate the fibroproliferative phase of tissue repair is, therefore, of high clinical relevance. Controlling the rate of the fibroproliferative response is essential to promote proper wound repair. Recent Advances: (1) The myofibroblast is essential for mediating the fibroproliferative phase of tissue repair. (2) The potent profibrotic cytokine transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) is a major in vivo contributor to myofibroblast differentiation and activity in vivo. Critical Issues: An increasing body of evidence indicates that the transcription factor peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor gamma (PPAR-γ) plays a key in vivo role in suppressing the fibrogenic response by antagonizing TGF-β signaling. Excessive scarring and/or chronic wounds, caused by a dysregulated fibroproliferative phase, are major clinical problems in response to tissue injury. Future Directions: The development of drugs to control the rate of the fibroproliferative response are clinically relevant. Controlling PPAR-γ activity may be useful for prevention of scarring as well as for promoting the closure of chronic wounds.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Wound CareSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207