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 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".