Delphi-driven consensus definition for mesenchymal stromal cells and clinical reporting guidelines for mesenchymal stromal cell–based therapeutics
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND AIMS: Despite promising results in pre-clinical studies, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) face significant challenges in clinical translation. A scoping review by our group highlighted two key issues contributing to this gap: (i) lack of a clear and consensus definition for MSCs and (ii) under-reporting of critical parameters in MSC clinical studies. To address these issues, we conducted a modified Delphi study to establish and implement a consensus definition for MSCs and develop reporting guidelines for MSC clinical studies. METHODS: A steering committee of 22 international experts, including stakeholders from different MSC research fields, participated in the three Delphi rounds. For the first round, to obtain a broad perspective, additional investigators recommended by the steering committee were invited to participate. The first two rounds consisted of online surveys, whereas the third round took the form of a virtual meeting. Participants were asked to rate a series of potential defining characteristics of MSCs and items for reporting guidelines. Consensus was defined as at least 80% of the participants rating the item in the same category of importance. RESULTS: Eighty-seven international participants participated in the first round survey (spring 2023), 17 participants participated in the second online survey (fall 2023) and 15 participants participated in the final virtual consensus meeting (January 2024). For the MSC definition, 20 items were considered and nine reached consensus. Items included terminology (one item), cell marker expression (five items), tissue origin (one item), stemness (one item) and description of critical quality attributes (one item). For the reporting guidelines, with the 28 initial items and the additional items suggested during round 1, a total of 33 items to report were included. This included items on MSC intervention group and control (e.g., MSC product, dose and administration), MSC characteristics (e.g., MSC provenance, "fitness," viability and immune compatibility) and MSC culture conditions (e.g., oxygen environment, culture medium and use of serum). CONCLUSIONS: By applying a Delphi method to establish a consensus definition for MSCs and reporting guidelines for MSC-based clinical trials, this work represents a significant advance in improving transparency and reproducibility in the conduct and reporting of MSC research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle