The evolving role of mast cells in wound healing: insights from recent research and diverse models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic wounds significantly burden health care systems worldwide, requiring novel strategies to ease their impact. Many physiological processes underlying wound healing are well studied but the role of mast cells remains controversial. Mast cells are innate immune cells and play an essential role in barrier function by inducing inflammation to defend the host against chemical irritants and infections, among others. Many mast cell-derived mediators have proposed roles in wound healing; however, in vivo evidence using mouse models has produced conflicting results. Recently, studies involving more complex wound models such as infected wounds, diabetic wounds and wounds healing under psychological stress suggest that mast cells play critical roles in these processes. This review briefly summarizes the existing literature regarding mast cells in normal wounds and the potential reasons for the contradictory results. Focus will be placed on examining more recent work emerging in the last 5 years that explores mast cells in more complex systems of wound healing, including infection, psychological stress and diabetes, with a discussion of how these discoveries may inspire future work in the field.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".