MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949657931 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irz099

Liquid Dermal Scaffold With Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Improve Tissue Quality in a Murine Model of Impaired Wound Healing

2019· article· en· W2949657931 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Forbes, Breshell Russ, Ruhangiz T. Kilani, Aziz Ghahary, Reza B. Jalili

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWound healingMedicineScaffoldRegeneration (biology)Stem cellAdipose tissueBiomedical engineeringSkin repairTissue engineeringCell biologySurgeryBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wound repair and regeneration is a multidisciplinary field of research with considerable potential value to the management of deep and large burn injuries. These injuries lack an appropriate tissue scaffold and pro-healing cells making them difficult to heal. An alternative to the often limited autologous skin is a therapy that would restore the essential matrix and cellular components for rapid healing. In this study, they use a novel liquid dermal scaffold capable of gelation in vivo to show that it is biocompatible with adipose-derived stem cells. Using a validated method of wound splinting in a delayed-healing murine model, we show that wounds treated with the scaffold and stem cells had a significant reduction in wound size and had accelerated healing compared with control. The wounds treated with stem cells had increased capillary formation, collagen content, epidermal thickness, and essential growth factor expression in the healed tissue compared with control and liquid scaffold alone. This liquid dermal scaffold combined with cells is a feasible treatment strategy for complex or large burn wounds that are otherwise lacking the appropriate cellular matrix necessary for healing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207