Expression of cell surface antigens in diabetic patients and healthy controls after injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Due to the systemic character of Type 2 diabetes, cellular disturbances paralleled by an altered expression of various growth factors constitute the basis for impaired wound healing. Cell-surface antigens are altered in chronic wounds and may also have an effect on the persistance of diabetic foot lesions. METHODS: We investigated blood samples of diabetic patients with diabetic foot ulcers (n=21) in comparison with those from healthy control patients subsequent to an injury (n=9). A blood sample (EDTA) was taken from each participant (in the trauma control group on the third day after injury) and examined by flow cytometry [fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACS)]. Typical cell surface antigens involved in wound healing were studied [cluster of differentiation (CD)2, CD3, CD4, CD25 and human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-diabetic retinopathy (DR)]. RESULTS: known to adversely affect wound healing were elevated in diabetic patients (CD2 p<0.001; CD3 p=0.016, CD4 p=0.22, CD25 p<0.001). HLA-DR expression was also decreased in diabetic foot patients (p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Cell-surface antigens appear to be altered in diabetic patients when compared to healthy controls. Thus, due to the systemic character of Type 2 diabetes, cellular disturbances may well constitute the basis for impaired wound healing in diabetes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".