MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900142801 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.10.014

Stem cells derived from burned skin - The future of burn care

2018· article· en· W2900142801 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Saeid Amini‐Nik, R. Dölp, Gertraud Eylert, Andrea‐Kaye Datu, Alexandra Parousis, Camille Blakeley, Marc G. Jeschke

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthUniversität Zürich
KeywordsMedicineStem cellRegeneration (biology)Mesenchymal stem cellWound healingSkin repairProgenitor cellTransplantationSurgeryDermatologyImmunologyPathologyBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Thermal injuries affect millions of adults and children worldwide and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. The key determinant for the survival of burns is rapid wound healing. Large wounds exceed intrinsic wound-healing capacities, and the currently available coverage materials are insufficient due to lack of cellularity, availability or immunological rejection. METHODS: Using the surgically debrided tissue, we isolated viable cells from burned skin. The isolated cells cultured in tissue culture dishes and characterized. FINDINGS: We report here that debrided burned skin, which is routinely excised from patients and otherwise considered medical waste and unconsciously discarded, contains viable, undamaged cells which show characteristics of mesenchymal skin stem cells. Those cells can be extracted, characterized, expanded, and incorporated into created epidermal-dermal substitutes to promote wound healing in immune-compromised mice and Yorkshire pigs without adverse side effects. INTERPRETATION: These findings are of paramount importance and provide an ideal cell source for autologous skin regeneration. Furthermore, this study highlights that skin contains progenitor cells resistant to thermal stress. FUND: Canadian Institutes of Health Research # 123336. CFI Leader's Opportunity Fund: Project # 25407 National Institutes of Health 2R01GM087285-05A1. EMHSeed: Fund: 500463, A generous donation from Toronto Hydro. Integra© Life Science Company provided the meshed bilayer Integra© for porcine experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations68
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207