Complements C3 and C5 Individually and in Combination Increase Early Wound Strength in a Rat Model of Experimental Wound Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Complements C3 and C5 have independently been shown to augment and increase wound healing and strength. Our goal was to investigate the combinatorial effect of complements C3 and C5 on wound healing. Methods. Each rat served as its own control where topical collagen was applied to one incision and 100 nM of C3 and C5 in collagen vehicle was applied to the other incision (n = 6). To compare between systemic effects, a sham group of rats (n = 6) was treated with collagen alone on one wound and saline on the other. At day 3, the tissue was examined for maximal breaking strength (MBS) and sectioned for histological examination. Results. There was a statistically significant 88% increase in MBS with the topical application of C3C5 when compared to sham wounds (n < 0.05). This was correlated with increased fibroblast and collagen deposition in the treated wounds. Furthermore, there appeared to be an additive hemostatic effect with the C3C5 combination. Conclusions. The combination of complements C3 and C5 as a topical application drug to skin wounds significantly increased wound healing maximum breaking strength as early as 3 days.
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".