Periodic Direct Current Does Not Promote Wound Closure in an In Vitro Dynamic Model of Cell Migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A prevailing paradigm is that electrical fields can promote cell migration and tissue healing. To further validate this paradigm, we tested the hypothesis that periodic direct current (DC) can enhance wound closure using an in vitro dynamic model of cell migration. METHODS AND RESULTS: Layers of primary fibroblasts were wounded and treated with DC under various voltages. Repair area, cell velocity, and directionality as well as lamellipodium area were evaluated at different times. Direct current had no beneficial effect on cell migration. Moreover, prolonged stimulation under the highest voltage led to significant reduction in wound closure and cell velocity. The reduction of membrane protusions in stimulated cells may be associated with the deleterious effect of DC. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Contrary to the authors' expectations, they found that periodic DC did not promote wound closure, a finding that emphasizes the need to clarify the complex effects of electrical fields on migrating cells.
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".