MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cellular and molecular pathology of HTS: basis for treatment

2007· review· en· W2138523315 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Armour, Paul G. Scott, Edward E. Tredget

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Repair and Regeneration · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecorinBiglycanExtracellular matrixFibrocyteMedicineWound healingVersicanPathologyParacrine signallingMesenchymal stem cellInflammationMatrix metalloproteinaseFibrosisFibrillogenesisImmunologyCell biologyProteoglycanBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertrophic scar and keloids are fibroproliferative disorders of the skin which occur often unpredictably, following trauma and inflammation that compromise cosmesis and function and commonly recur following surgical attempts for improvement. Despite decades of research in these fibrotic conditions, current non-surgical methods of treatment are slow, inconvenient and often only partially effective. Fibroblasts from these conditions are activated to produce extracellular matrix proteins such as collagen I and III, proteoglycans such as versican and biglycan and growth factors, including transforming growth factor-beta and insulin like growth factor I. However, more consistently these cells produce less remodeling enzymes including collagenase and other matrix metalloproteinases, as well as the small proteoglycan decorin which is important for normal collagen fibrillogenesis. Recently, the systemic response to injury appears to influence the local healing process whereby increases in Th2 and possibly Th3 cytokines such as IL-2, IL-4 and IL-10 and TGF-beta are present in the circulating lymphocytes in these fibrotic conditions. Finally, unique bone marrow derived cells including mesenchymal and endothelial stem cells as well as fibrocytes appear to traffic into healing wounds and influence the healing tissue. On this background, clinicians are faced with patients who require treatment and the pathophysiologic basis as currently understood is reviewed for a number of emerging modalities.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations170
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWound Repair and RegenerationSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207