MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211028213 · doi:10.1111/wrr.12981

The pig as a model system for investigating the recruitment and contribution of myofibroblasts in skin healing

2021· review· en· W3211028213 on OpenAlexafffund
Douglas W. Hamilton, John T. Walker, Dylan Tinney, Michael Grynyshyn, Alexander O. El‐Warrak, Emily Truscott, Lauren E. Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Repair and Regeneration · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMyofibroblastWound healingGranulation tissuePathologyMedicineBiologySurgeryFibrosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the skin-healing field, porcine models are regarded as a useful analogue for human skin due to their numerous anatomical and physiological similarities. Despite the widespread use of porcine models in skin healing studies, the initial origin, recruitment and transition of fibroblasts to matrix-secreting contractile myofibroblasts are not well defined for this model. In this review, we discuss the merit of the pig as an animal for studying myofibroblast origin, as well as the challenges associated with assessing their contributions to skin healing. Although a variety of wound types (incisional, partial thickness, full thickness, burns) have been investigated in pigs in attempts to mimic diverse injuries in humans, direct comparison of human healing profiles with regards to myofibroblasts shows evident differences. Following injury in porcine models, which often employ juvenile animals, myofibroblasts are described in the developing granulation tissue at 4 days, peaking at Days 7-14, and persisting at 60 days post-wounding, although variations are evident depending on the specific pig breed. In human wounds, the presence of myofibroblasts is variable and does not correlate with the age of the wound or clinical contraction. Our comparison of porcine myofibroblast-mediated healing processes with those in humans suggests that further validation of the pig model is essential. Moreover, we identify several limitations evident in experimental design that need to be better controlled, and standardisation of methodologies would be beneficial for the comparison and interpretation of results. In particular, we discuss anatomical location of the wounds, their size and depth, as well as the healing microenvironment (wet vs. moist vs. dry) in pigs and how this could influence myofibroblast recruitment. In summary, although a widespread model used in the skin healing field, further research is required to validate pigs as a useful analogue for human healing with regards to myofibroblasts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWound Repair and RegenerationSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207