MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596505224 · doi:10.1517/14712598.2015.1057564

Cell therapy in muscular dystrophies: many promises in mice and dogs, few facts in patients

2015· review· en· W1596505224 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Skuk, Jacques P. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyocyteClinical trialMedicineCell therapyTransplantationCellSkeletal muscleBioinformaticsStem cellPathologyImmunologyInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Muscular dystrophies (MDs) are genetic diseases that produce progressive loss of skeletal muscle fibers. Cell therapy (CT) is an experimental approach to treat MD. The first clinical trials of CT in MD conducted in the 1990s were based on myoblast transplantation (MT). Since they did not yield the expected results, several researchers sought to discover other cells with more advantageous properties than myoblasts whereas others sought to improve MT. AREAS COVERED: We explain the properties that are required for a cell to be used in CT of MD. We briefly review most of the cells that were proposed for this CT, and to what extent these properties were met not only in laboratory animals but also in clinical trials. EXPERT OPINION: Although the repertoire of cells proposed for CT of MD has been expanded since the 1990s, only myoblasts have currently demonstrated unequivocally to significantly engraft in humans. Indeed, MT for MD involves significant technical challenges that need be solved. While it would be ideal to find cells involving less technical challenges for CT of MD, there is so far no clinical evidence that this is possible and therefore the work to improve MT should continue.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207