Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibrotic responses in the gingiva are characterized by their hyperproliferative nature instead of scar tissue formation. Clinically, these conditions appear as "gingival overgrowth" (GO), which can be of drug-induced or genetic origin. Despite surgical removal, GO can recur. Therefore, non-invasive methods of treating GO are required. In other fibrotic systems, the matricellular protein CCN2 represents a potential therapeutic target. However, CCN2 has been relatively understudied in the context of GO. HIGHLIGHT: Herein, we describe what is known regarding CCN2 expression in GO and gingival fibroblasts. Specifically, CCN2 is induced by agents that promote fibrogenesis in the oral cavity, such as transforming growth factor-β, and drugs that promote GO, such as cyclosporine, nifedipine, and phenytoin. CONCLUSION: Although little is known regarding the possible function of CCN2 in GO, given the correlation between CCN2 expression and GO recurrence, we hope that this review will inspire further research on this topic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".