Elastin Is Differentially Regulated by Pressure Therapy in a Porcine Model of Hypertrophic Scar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beneficial effects of pressure therapy for hypertrophic scars have been reported, but the mechanisms of action are not fully understood. This study evaluated elastin and its contribution to scar pliability. The relationship between changes in Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores of pressure-treated scars and differential regulation of elastin was assessed. Hypertrophic scars were created and assessed weekly using VSS and biopsy procurement. Pressure treatment began on day 70 postinjury. Treated scars were compared with untreated shams. Treatment lasted 2 weeks, through day 84, and scars were assessed weekly through day 126. Transcript and protein levels of elastin were quantified. Pressure treatment resulted in lower VSS scores compared with sham-treated scars. Pliability (VSSP) was a key contributor to this difference. At day 70 pretreatment, VSSP = 2. Without treatment, sham-treated scars became less pliable, while pressure-treated scars became more pliable. The percentage of elastin in scars at day 70 was higher than in uninjured skin. Following treatment, the percentage of elastin increased and continued to increase through day 126. Untreated sham scars did not show a similar increase. Quantification of Verhoeff-Van Gieson staining corroborated the findings and immunofluorescence revealed the alignment of elastin fibers. Pressure treatment results in increased protein level expression of elastin compared with sham-untreated scars. These findings further characterize the extracellular matrix's response to the application of pressure as a scar treatment, which will contribute to the refinement of rehabilitation practices and ultimately improvements in functional and psychosocial outcomes for patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".