PubMed · 14807076
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M DEMASSIEUX. [Burns].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14807076/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Burn injuries trigger complex immune responses and gene expression changes, impacting wound healing and systemic inflammation. Understanding these changes is crucial for identifying biomarkers and therapeutic targets. METHODS: We analyzed two gene expression omnibus datasets (wound tissue [GSE8056] and blood [GSE37069]) to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in burn injury samples versus controls. Immune cell proportions were assessed using CIBERSORT. Functional enrichment analyses (Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) and protein-protein interaction networks were constructed to identify key genes and pathways. RESULTS: We identified 1170 upregulated and 1227 downregulated DEGs. Gene Ontology analysis revealed enrichment in neutrophil activation, inflammatory response, and extracellular matrix organization. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analysis highlighted cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, TNF, and IL-17 signaling pathways. Immune infiltration analysis showed significant changes in neutrophils, macrophages (M1/M2), and T-cell subsets. Protein-protein interaction network analysis identified five hub genes: JUN, STAT1, Bcl2, MMP9, and TLR2. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive bioinformatic analysis of gene expression and immune responses in burn injuries. The identified DEGs, hub genes, and pathways offer insights into the immune response mechanisms and suggest potential targets for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in burn injury management.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: The determination of laparoscopic surgeon ability is essential to training error avoidance. The present study describes a practical method of surgical error analysis. METHODS: After review of practice videotapes of the excisional phase of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, consensus on the identification of eight errors was achieved. Interrater agreement at the end of this phase was 84-96%. Fourteen study videotapes of gallbladder excision were then observed independently by expert reviewers blinded to surgical team identity. Procedures were assessed using a scoring matrix of 1-min segments with each error reported each minute. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was 84-100% for all error categories. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that excellent interrater agreement of procedural errors can be achieved by carefully defining and training recognition of targeted events. Extension of this simple and reliable analysis tool to other procedures should be feasible to define behaviors leading to adverse clinical outcomes.