A comparison of intravenous and intradiscal delivery of multipotential stem cells on the healing of injured intervertebral disk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major hurdle of cellular therapy for biological treatment of intervertebral disk (IVD) degeneration is the delivery method where current delivery methods are limited to intradiscal injection which can potentially cause further degeneration. Recent studies indicated that multipotential stem cells (MPSCs) from human umbilical cord blood home to injured sites and induce local therapeutic changes, thereby potentially addressing the drawbacks of direct delivery. We tested the effects of these cells on injured IVD using a mouse model of puncture-induced degeneration via two delivery methods. Caudal IVD underwent needle puncture, and MPSCs were injected indirectly (intravenously), or directly (intradiscally) into the nucleus pulposus. IVD were harvested for histological, gene and protein analysis after 14 weeks. Our finding showed limited homing ability of the MPSCs. However, regardless of delivery method, no engraftment or expansion of MPSCs was observed at the injured site. Contrasting to direct injection, intravenous injection neither improved the degeneration status, nor preserve disk height, however, both delivery methods increased glycosaminoglycan (GAG) protein and Acan gene expression relative to controls, suggesting possible paracrine effects. Identifying the mechanisms by which MPSCs act on endogenous IVD cells would provide insights into the potential of these cells to treat IVD injuries and degeneration.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".