Axolotls’ and Mices’ Oral-Maxillofacial Trephining Wounds Heal Differently
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ambystoma maxicanum (axolotl) regenerates strikingly from wounds and amputations. Comparing its healing ability to non-regenerative species such as the mouse should help narrow in on mechanisms to improve human wound healing. Here, the tongue and intermandibular soft tissues of both mice (C57BL/6NCrl) and axolotls were wounded with a 2-2.5 mm punch biopsy. The study aimed to compare the differences between these 2 species following surgical resection with regard to the macroscopic and histological characteristics. These include wound closure times, epithelial wound sealing and thickness as well as acute immune marker myeloperoxidase (MPO) response over 30 days. Post surgery, mice visually showed greater haemorrhage; their wounds immediately collapsed while it took 14 days for the axolotls mandibular void to close. The epithelium sealed the axolotls' wound margins within 24 h with a maximal mean thickness of 0.42 ± 0.13-fold normalized to unwounded skin. In mice, the epithelium separately sealed the ventral and dorsal sides, respectively at 7 and 7-30 days with mean maximal epithelial thicknesses reaching 13 ± 5.6 and 3.0 ± 0.63-fold. Mean MPO-positive cell values peaked in axolotls at 14 ± 1.5-fold between hours 6-12; while in mice, it peaked at 8.7 ± 0.9-fold between hours 24-96. We conclude that axolotls form smaller blood clots, have a faster and thinner epithelial cell migrating front, and a shorter MPO-positive cell response in comparison to mice. These observations may help refine future oral and facial wound-healing research and treatment.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it