Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contoversies in Experimental Dermatology

Open access
·2002·Experimental Dermatology

Abstract

Conventional textbook wisdom portrays the skin as an organ that literally enwraps whatever each of us stands for as a more or less functional, individual member of the mammalian species, and has it that the skin primarily establishes, controls and transmits contacts with the external world. In addition, the skin has long been recognized to protect the organism from deleterious environmental impacts (physical, chemical,microbiological), and is well-known as crucial for the maintenance of temperature, electrolyte and fluid balance. Now, ever more studies are being published that show the skin to also operate as a huge and highly active biofactory for the synthesis,processing and/or metabolism of an astounding range of e.g. structural proteins, glycans, lipids and signaling molecules. Increasingly, it becomes appreciated that the skin, furthermore, is an integral component of the immune, nervous and endocrine systems, with numerous lines of cross-talk between these systems established intracutaneously (e.g. Ann NY Acad Sci Vol 885, 1999; Endocrine Rev 21:457-487, 2000; Physiol Rev 80:980-1020, 2001; Exp Dermatol 10: 349-367, 2001). All these emerging cutaneous functions beyond the classical image of the skin as a barrier and sensory organ are immediately relevant for many of the quandaries that clinical dermatology, dermatopathology, and dermatopharmacology are still struggling with to-date, and offer the practising dermatologist attractive new targets for therapeutic intervention. Yet, many of these skin functions are not even mentioned in dermatology textbooks and await systematic therapeutic targeting. Following a suggestion by Enno Christophers, the current 'Controversies' feature brings together an unusually diverse council of biologists and clinicians, who share their thought-provoking views with the readers and allow us to peek into the future of research in cutaneous biology, not the least by reminding us of the -- often ignored -- evolutionary and embryonal origins of our favorite organ. Hopefully, this unique discussion feature will foster an understanding of the 'true' skin functions that is both more comprehensive and more profound than conventional teaching on this topic, and will stimulate more than 'skin-deep' reflections on the full range of skin functions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0625.2002.00112.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Venue
Experimental Dermatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-04
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
159-187
ISSN
  • 0906-6705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0625
OpenAlex
W1571123409
Cited by
288
References
4
FWCI
9.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contoversies in Experimental Dermatology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1600-0625.2002.00112.x
The paper
Contoversies in Experimental Dermatology. (2002). Experimental Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0625.2002.00112.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.