Keloid tissue analysis discredits a role for myofibroblasts in disease pathogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myofibroblasts, renowned for their contractility and extracellular matrix production, are widely considered the key effector cells for nearly all scars resulting from tissue repair processes, ranging from normal scars to extreme fibrosis. For example, it is often assumed that myofibroblasts underpin the characteristics of keloid scars, which are debilitating pathological skin scars lacking effective treatments because of a poor understanding of the disease mechanisms. Here, we present primary and published transcriptional and histological evidence that myofibroblasts are not consistently present in primary keloid lesions, and when alpha-smooth muscle actin (αSMA)-positive cells are detected, they are not greater in number or expressing more αSMA than in normal or hypertrophic scars. In conclusion, keloid scars do not appear to require αSMA-positive myofibroblasts; continuing to consider keloids on a quantitative spectrum with normal or hypertrophic scars, with αSMA serving as a biomarker of disease severity, is hindering advancement of understanding and therapy development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".