MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099591943 · doi:10.1089/wound.2014.0550

The Role of Chemokines in Fibrotic Wound Healing

2014· review· en· W2099591943 on OpenAlexafffund
Jie Ding, Edward E. Tredget

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Wound Care · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsScarsMedicineWound healingFibrosisKeloidWound careChemokinePathologyDermatologyInflammationIntensive care medicineSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance: Main dermal forms of fibroproliferative disorders are hypertrophic scars (HTS) and keloids. They often occur after cutaneous wound healing after skin injury, or keloids even form spontaneously in the absence of any known injury. HTS and keloids are different in clinical performance, morphology, and histology, but they all lead to physical and psychological problems for survivors. Recent Advances: Although the mechanism of wound healing at cellular and tissue levels has been well described, the molecular pathways involved in wound healing, especially fibrotic healing, is incompletely understood. Critical Issues: Abnormal scars not only lead to increased health-care costs but also cause significant psychological problems for survivors. A plethora of therapeutic strategies have been used to prevent or attenuate excessive scar formation; however, most therapeutic approaches remain clinically unsatisfactory. Future Directions: Effective care depends on an improved understanding of the mechanisms that cause abnormal scars in patients. A thorough understanding of the roles of chemokines in cutaneous wound healing and abnormal scar formation will help provide more effective preventive and therapeutic strategies for dermal fibrosis as well as for other proliferative disorders.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations61
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Wound CareSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207