Genome-wide comparisons of gene expression in adult versus elderly burn patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mortality and morbidity rates of elderly burn patients remain high despite numerous advancements in modern burn care. While prior studies have offered first insights on the biochemical changes in elderly burn patients compared to adults, the underlying cellular responses remain largely unknown. In this study, we aim to characterize the transcriptome of elderly burn patients and compare it to adult burn patients to obtain insights into the underlying molecular responses post-burn and to elucidate the effect of advanced age on the acute burn response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Microarray data obtained from the Glue Grant Trauma-Related Database was obtained from blood specimens for ten elderly patients (n = 10), each with a set of two sex and total body surface area (TBSA) matched adult controls (n = 20), during the acute phase post-burn. Adult and elderly demographics and clinical outcomes were contrasted using using the Chi-Square test, Fisher's Exact Test, or two-sample t-tests, as appropriate (p<0.05). Enrichment and heat maps were generated to compare gene expression in elderly versus adult burn patients. RESULTS: Supervised analysis identified multiple genes that were differentially expressed between the elderly and adult groups. Pathway analysis and heatmap generation suggest that elderly patients share a distinct hypo-inflammatory response in the acute post-burn phase with downregulation of a number of immune-related pathways, including those related to antigen processing, specifically via MHC class I, ubiquitination and proteasome degradation (p<0.001, FDR < .001). Cell signalling pathways, such as NF-κB, C-type lectin receptor, and T cell receptor signalling were also significantly downregulated in elderly burn patients, as well as those relating to antiviral immunity (p<0.001, FDR < .001). Many genes which were observed to be upregulated in elderly patients with high TBSA burn injuries were associated with destruction-related cellular pathways such as complement activation and immunoglobulin production (p<0.005, FDR <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The altered inflammatory and immune responses at the transcriptome level in elderly patients after burn are indicative of a failure in elderly burn patients to initiate an appropriate inflammatory and stress response during the acute phase post-burn.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".