Pericyte-derived fibrotic scarring is conserved across diverse central nervous system lesions
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
Fibrotic scar tissue limits central nervous system regeneration in adult mammals. The extent of fibrotic tissue generation and distribution of stromal cells across different lesions in the brain and spinal cord has not been systematically investigated in mice and humans. Furthermore, it is unknown whether scar-forming stromal cells have the same origin throughout the central nervous system and in different types of lesions. In the current study, we compared fibrotic scarring in human pathological tissue and corresponding mouse models of penetrating and non-penetrating spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, ischemic stroke, multiple sclerosis and glioblastoma. We show that the extent and distribution of stromal cells are specific to the type of lesion and, in most cases, similar between mice and humans. Employing in vivo lineage tracing, we report that in all mouse models that develop fibrotic tissue, the primary source of scar-forming fibroblasts is a discrete subset of perivascular cells, termed type A pericytes. Perivascular cells with a type A pericyte marker profile also exist in the human brain and spinal cord. We uncover type A pericyte-derived fibrosis as a conserved mechanism that may be explored as a therapeutic target to improve recovery after central nervous system lesions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it