The Role of Myofibroblasts in Physiological and Pathological Tissue Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myofibroblasts are the construction workers of wound healing and repair damaged tissues by producing and organizing collagen/extracellular matrix (ECM) into scar tissue. Scar tissue effectively and quickly restores the mechanical integrity of lost tissue architecture but comes at the price of lost tissue functionality. Fibrotic diseases caused by excessive or persistent myofibroblast activity can lead to organ failure. This review defines myofibroblast terminology, phenotypic characteristics, and functions. We will focus on the central role of the cell, ECM, and tissue mechanics in regulating tissue repair by controlling myofibroblast action. Additionally, we will discuss how therapies based on mechanical intervention potentially ameliorate wound healing outcomes. Although myofibroblast physiology and pathology affect all organs, we will emphasize cutaneous wound healing and hypertrophic scarring as paradigms for normal tissue repair versus fibrosis. A central message of this review is that myofibroblasts can be activated from multiple cell sources, varying with local environment and type of injury, to either restore tissue integrity and organ function or create an inappropriate mechanical environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".