MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Basics of Soft Tissue Healing and General Factors that Influence Such Healing

2005· article· en· W2084469917 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin A. Hildebrand, Corrie L. Gallant‐Behm, Alison S Kydd, David A. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWound healingMedicineRegeneration (biology)Tissue repairSoft tissueSurgeryBiomedical engineeringCell biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wound healing and repair of injured tissues follows several steps in the healthy individual. Following birth, the process is initiated by the inflammatory response and subsequent steps are based on this initial response. Whereas wound healing generally leads to a repair of the injured site, it does not lead to tissue regeneration. This difference between repair and regeneration has influence on tissues such as ligaments and tendons that function in a mechanically active environment. Thus, the dynamic interface between mechanics and biology influence the effectiveness of the healing response. The biology of the host is also influenced by a variety of factors including age, gender, genetics, and tissue history, factors that impact the outcome of the healing response. This review focuses on several of the issues surrounding the healing of tissues in general and ligaments and tendons more specifically. In addition, the use of interventions such as cell and gene therapy to improve healing is discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports Medicine and Arthroscopy ReviewSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207