MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405991682 · doi:10.3390/ijtm5010004

Challenges of Porcine Wound Models: A Review

2025· review· en· W4405991682 on OpenAlexaff
Margarita Elloso, Maria Fernanda Hutter, Nicklas Jeschke, Graham Rix, Yufei Chen, Alisa Douglas, Marc G. Jeschke

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Translational Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWound healingMedicineComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pigs are important translational research models for wound healing due to their skin, which is similar to human skin in terms of anatomy and physiology. Porcine wound models have been developed and used for years to study wound healing and evaluate various therapeutic agents. However, the study of porcine wound healing is multilayered as it involves not just the complex biological processes of wound healing but also cost, animal housing, handling, staff experience, and challenges such as procedural risks and human resources. In this review article, we discuss the various challenges of the model. Investigators using pig models should be well informed of the challenges of the porcine wound model to prevent possible problems and complications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Translational MedicineSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207