Abstract 2665: Cellular Cardiomyoplasty: Optimizing Cellular Dosage and Retention by Microencapsulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There is no consensus regarding the optimal dose of marrow stromal cells (MSCs) for cellular cardiomyoplasty via direct intramyocardial implantation. Previous studies also demonstrated massive cells loss after injections due to myocardial contraction. Here we studied the dosage at which there is functional improvement, and hypothesized that cellular washout may be reduced by increasing the size of the injectate using microencapsulation. Methods: In Experiment I , 5 groups of rats (n=9/grp) underwent coronary ligation; Grp. I had no treatment; Grp. II to V received escalating 0.5x10 6 , 1.5x10 6 , 3x10 6 and 5x10 6 cells each. Echocardiogram was performed at baseline, 2 days and 6 weeks after surgery to measure ejection fraction ( EF) in a blinded fashion. In Experiment II , fluorescent cell-sized microspheres (10 μm) were encapsulated in Alginate-Poly-l-Lysine-Alginate microcapsules in two different sizes. Each rat received intramyocardial injection of 1x10 6 microspheres. In Grp. A (n=16/grp), rats received bare microspheres, Grp. B, microspheres within 200 μm microcapsules and in Grp. C, microspheres within 400 μm microcapsules were given. After 20 minutes, hearts were harvested and the microspheres retained in the myocardium quantified. Results: In Experiment I , baseline LVEF was 71 ± 1.4%. Two days post MI, EF was 30.5± 10.1% and no statistical difference between groups. EF at 7 weeks was 30± 4.3 in Grp. I, 30.2± 9.4% in Grp. II, 53.8± 11.8% in Grp. III, 54±8.2% in Grp. IV and 52.6 ± 7.5% in Grp. V. The improvement in LVEF was statistically significant between Grps. I-II and Grps. III - V. (p< 0.05, ANOVA and Tukey’s) In Experiment II , the microspheres retention rate was 4.3 ± 3.5% (Grp. A), 16.5 ± 7.7% (Grp. B) and 13±6.3% (Grp. C). The difference between Grp. A vs B and C was statistically significant but not between Grp. B and C . (p< 0.05, ANOVA and Tukey’s) Conclusion: We concluded that functional improvement in this animal model starts at 1.5 x10 6 cells, but is far from optimal. Micoencapsulation increased the retention by 4 folds. Thus this study suggests that improving mechanical retention is possible by microencapsulation of donor stem cells which may facilitate functional improvement of the damaged heart.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".