MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Limitations of studying keloid scars using the nude athymic mouse model

2002· article· en· W2527751238 on OpenAlexaff
MP Hillmer, Sherine Salama

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScarsKeloidNude mouseDermatologyComputer scienceMedicinePathologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keloid scars are benign fibroproliferative growths that respond poorly to treatment.This study sought to determine the efficacy of three different glucocorticoids (triamcinolone, methylprednisolone and dexamethasone) in altering human keloid scar tissue implanted in athymic mice.Keloid tissue obtained from three patients (one man and two women) who sought cosmetic removal of their scars was implanted into athymic mice for a duration of 15 or 30 days.The keloid tissue was examined histopathologically and evaluated by a dermatopathologist who was blinded to sample identity and who was using predetermined qualitative scoring criteria.The appearance of central calcification, granulation tissue, foreign body granulomatous reaction and acute inflammatory reaction complicated the comparison of the keloid tissue samples.However, on the basis of observations reported in the present paper, it appears that triamcinolone should remain the treatment of choice for keloid scars.The athymic mouse model that is used for studying keloid scars is the best available approach to in vivo studies; however, limitations identified in this study confound the interpretation of experimental data.Ideally, promising and novel therapies should be investigated clinically.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.352
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.027 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic SurgerySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207