MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 16967: Preclinical Evaluation of Biopolymer-Delivered Endothelial Progenitor Cells in Hibernating Myocardium

2011· article· en· W151834312 on OpenAlexaff
Céline Giordano, Stephanie Thorn, Erik J. Suuronen, Talal Al‐Atassi, Munir Boodhwani, Pingchuan Zhang, Kathy Ascah, Jean N. DaSilva, Rob deKemp, Robert Beanlands, Marc Ruel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHibernating myocardiumMedicineProgenitor cellBiopolymerArteriogenesisCell biologyStem cellAngiogenesisCardiologyCancer researchMyocardial infarctionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Vasculogenic cell-based therapy combined with tissue engineering is a promising revascularization solution for patients with hibernating myocardium (HM), a common clinical condition. However, large animal studies are lacking and we therefore used a clinically relevant pig model of HM to examine the benefits of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) and biopolymer therapy in this context. We hypothesized that the delivery of EPCs within a matrix would yield greater improvements in myocardial blood flow (MBF), metabolism, and function than EPCs alone or PBS control. Methods: Twenty-three Yorkshire swine underwent placement of an ameroid constrictor on the left circumflex artery (LCx). After 2 weeks, animals underwent echocardiography, a rest and a dipyridamole-induced stress 13N-NH3 PET scan, and a rest 18FDG-PET viability scan. At the same time, EPCs were isolated and cultured for 1 week, and swine were randomized to intramyocardial injections (total: 3 ml) of PBS (n=9), EPCs (∼30 x 106; n=7), or EPCs + a collagen-based matrix (n=7). PET imaging was repeated 4 weeks post treatment, and swine were sacrificed the following week. Results: Hibernation was detected in 60% of animals and was specific to the LCx region (p=0.002). Baseline MBF was reduced at rest and stress in the affected region, compared to the remote area (1.13 ± 0.09 vs. 1.57 ± 0.15 ml/min/g at stress, respectively, p=0.01). At follow-up, MBF at stress and myocardial flow reserve (not shown) were higher in the EPC + matrix group compared to EPCs or PBS (EPCs + matrix: +21 ± 13%; EPCs -17 ± 8%; PBS: +5 ± 10%, p<0.05). This was paralleled by improved wall motion abnormalities (EPCs + matrix by 30 ± 9 %; EPCs by 22 ± 21%; PBS by 15 ± 12 %) and improved mismatch scores (EPCs + matrix by 79 ± 10%; EPCs by 55 ± 15%; PBS by 35 ± 19%)(all p<0.05). MBF at stress in the LCx segments positively correlated with smooth muscle actin staining for arterioles (r=0.7; p=0.02). Conclusions: This preclinical swine model successfully demonstrated the creation of HM, which was improved by vasculogenic cell therapy. The additional effects conferred by a collagen-based delivery matrix over EPCs alone included improved MBF in the EPC + matrix group, as well as circulatory and metabolic recovery with improvements in myocardial function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207