Chemokine Pathway Can Be the Potential Therapeutic Target for Hypertrophic Scar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertrophic scar (HTS) is a dermal form of fibroproliferative disease that develops after deep burns, skin injuries, and surgical wounds. HTS is defined as a visible, elevated scar that does not spread into surrounding tissues and often regresses. HTS often leads to physical and psychological issues for patients. Cellular and molecular agents, such as chemokines, bone marrow derived stem cells, TGF-β, fibroblast heterogeneity, toll-like receptor 4, and small leucine-rich proteoglycans, have been known to play an important role in wound healing and abnormal scar formation. Targeting these agents could have therapeutic potential for the treatment of pathological scars. HTS often causes contracture deformities, aesthetic disfigurement, and prolonged periods of hospitalisation and rehabilitation, leading to psychological complications. Numerous treatments have been described for HTS, but the optimal treatment has not yet been established. Chemokines are implicated in all stages of wound healing, but hyperactivity of these agents leads to excessive scarring. A better understanding of the mechanisms of chemokine action, such as the role of the signalling agents in wound healing and abnormal scar formation, will help to establish more effective therapeutic strategies for HTS.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".