MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251905691 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000001462

Reply

2015· letter· en· W4251905691 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Bezuhly

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdipogenesisAngiogenesisAdipose tissueStromal cellRegulatorMacrophageReceptorChemistryInternal medicineCell biologyEndocrinologyMedicineBiologyIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir: We thank Dr. Lujan-Hernandez and colleagues for their insightful comments regarding our work examining the role of alternatively activated M2 macrophages in improving fat graft survival. Both our groups have observed the critical role played by the induction of angiogenesis following fat grafting, with greater vascular density associated with improved graft retention. The importance of angiogenesis has likewise been demonstrated by others.1,2 As Dr. Lujan-Hernandez et al. rightly point out, however, angiogenesis is unlikely to be the sole determinant of ultimate fat engraftment. Illustrative of this is the observation of Kølle et al. that grafts enriched ex vivo with adipose-derived stromal cells in human subjects demonstrated greater volume retention but no increase in vascular density 4 months after implantation.3 This finding would suggest that improvement in graft volume may also be highly dependent on adipogenesis, a point underscored by the work of Dr. Lujan-Hernandez and colleagues in which they have demonstrated increased adipogenesis in the setting of inflammation. On the whole, these observations point to a far more complex process involving an ever-shifting balance between angiogenesis and adipogenesis.4 In the current report, we failed to observe a difference in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ, a critical positive regulator of adipogenesis,5 after 3 days of culture in M2 macrophage-conditioned medium. Others have shown a similar failure of macrophage-conditioned medium to induce adipogenesis.6 We agree with Dr. Lujan-Hernandez et al. that our inability to detect a difference in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ expression at the time point assessed may be attributable to earlier induction of this gene. The other possibility is that soluble factors produced by M2 macrophages are inadequate on their own to trigger terminal maturation of preadipocytes. We are examining this very question through the use of co-cultures. Our early data suggest that endothelial precursor populations from the stromal vascular fraction serve as a robust source of proadipogenic factors. Although preliminary, this would point to a critical link between angiogenesis and adipogenesis. In conclusion, we would like to once more thank Dr. Lujan-Hernandez and colleagues for their valuable comments and discussion. DISCLOSURE The author has no financial interest to declare in relation to content of this communication. Michael Bezuhly, M.D. Izaak Walton Killam Health Centre 5850/5980 University Avenue P.O. Box 9700 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3K 6R8, Canada [email protected]

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)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0150.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.022

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207