Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical science has vastly improved on the means and methods available for the treatment of wounds in the clinic. The production and use of various types of skin substitutes has led to dramatic improvements in the odds of survival for severely burned patients, but they have also shown promise for many other applications, including cases involving chronic wounds that are not life threatening. Nowadays, more than 20 products are commercially available, more are undergoing clinical trials and a large number of new models are being investigated in various research laboratories worldwide. Many of the current products do not contain any living cells and vary in their capacity to harness the innate capacity of the body to heal itself. Others include living cells, of allogeneic or autologous origin, and are often referred to as 'cellular therapy' or 'tissue-engineered' products. Modifications and improvements are currently investigated that aim at improving the healing potential of those products through the use of recombinant growth factors and additional features such as microvascularization. Fundamental research into wound healing and scar-free regeneration raises the hope that we will eventually be able to restore almost completely the appearance and function of skin after the healing of 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 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".