Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Animal Bleomycin Pulmonary Fibrosis Models: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is an inexorably progressive lung disease with few available treatments. New therapeutic options are needed. Stem cells have generated much enthusiasm for the treatment of several conditions, including lung diseases. Human trials of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy for pulmonary fibrosis are under way. To shed light on the potential usefulness of MSCs for human disease, we aimed to systematically review the preclinical literature to determine if MSCs are beneficial in animal bleomycin pulmonary fibrosis models. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for original studies of stem cell therapy in animal bleomycin models of pulmonary fibrosis. Studies using embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells were excluded. Seventeen studies were selected, all of which used MSCs in rodents. MSC therapy led to an improvement in bleomycin-induced lung collagen deposition in animal lungs and in the pulmonary fibrosis Ashcroft score in most studies. MSC therapy improved histopathology in almost all studies in which it was evaluated qualitatively. Furthermore, MSC therapy was found to improve 14-day survival in animals with bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis. Bronchoalveolar lavage total and neutrophil counts, as well as transforming growth factor-β levels, were also reduced by MSCs. MSCs are beneficial in rodent bleomycin pulmonary fibrosis models. Since most studies examined the initial inflammatory phase rather than the chronic fibrotic phase, preclinical data offer better support for human trials of MSCs in acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis rather than the chronic phase of the disease. SIGNIFICANCE: There has been increased interest in mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for lung diseases. A few small clinical trials are under way in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Preclinical evidence was assessed in a systematic review, as is often done for clinical studies. The existing studies offer better support for efficacy in the initial inflammatory phase rather than the fibrotic phase that human trials are targeting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".