Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating disease which impacts the patient physically, psychologically and financially. Although the pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods are used, none of them are able to improve the quality of life permanently. Recent advancement in the regenerative medicines has risen a new dawn for treatment of SCI. Method: In the current study, human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) were used on pre-diagnosed chronic SCI patients with informed written and video consent. The cell lines were cultured and maintained in a good manufacturing practice (GMP), good laboratory practice (GLP), and good tissue practice (GTP) compliance laboratory which were free of animal product and chromosomally stable. The patients were scored according to the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scale. There were four treatment phases (T1, T2, T3 and T4) with gap phases. Patient received 0.25 mL of hESCs through intramuscular (IM) route twice daily, 1 mL of hESCs every 10 days through intravenous (IV) route and 1 - 5 mL of hESCs for 5 - 7 days through supplemental routes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tractography was performed for all the patients before and after the therapy. Result: Of 11 patients at the beginning of therapy, seven patients were on ASIA score A, one patient was on ASIA score B, two patients were on ASIA score C and one patient was on ASIA score D. At the end of treatment, three patients moved to lower scale, i.e. ASIA score D, two patients to ASIA score C and rest all the patients were on ASIA score A. There was a remarkable improvement in the signs and symptoms of patients clinically. No adverse event and teratoma formation was observed. Conclusion: hESC therapy showed remarkable improvement in the clinical symptoms in SCI patients. J Neurol Res. 2015;5(3):213-220 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jnr339w
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".