Scar‐free cutaneous wound healing in the leopard gecko, <i>Eublepharis macularius</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous wounds heal with two possible outcomes: scarification or near-perfect integumentary restoration. Whereas scar formation has been intensively investigated, less is known about the tissue-level events characterising wounds that spontaneously heal scar-free, particularly in non-foetal amniotes. Here, a spatiotemporal investigation of scar-free cutaneous wound healing following full-thickness excisional biopsies to the tail and body of leopard geckos (Eublepharis macularius) is provided. All injuries healed without scarring. Cutaneous repair involves the development of a cell-rich aggregate within the wound bed, similar to scarring wounds. Unlike scar formation, scar-free healing involves a more rapid closure of the wound epithelium, and a delay in blood vessel development and collagen deposition within the wound bed. It was found that, while granulation tissue of scarring wounds is hypervascular, scar-free wound healing conspicuously does not involve a period of exuberant blood vessel formation. In addition, during scar-free wound healing the newly formed blood vessels are typically perivascular cell-supported. Immunohistochemistry revealed widespread expression of both the pro-angiogenic factor vascular endothelial growth factor A and the anti-angiogenic factor thrombospondin-1 within the healing wound. It was found that scar-free wound healing is an intrinsic property of leopard gecko integument, and involves a modulation of the cutaneous scar repair program. This proportional revascularisation is an important factor in scar-free wound healing.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".