One-Year Safety Analysis of the COMPARE-AMI Trial: Comparison of Intracoronary Injection of CD133<sup>+</sup> Bone Marrow Stem Cells to Placebo in Patients after Acute Myocardial Infarction and Left Ventricular Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone marrow stem cell therapy has emerged as a promising approach to improve healing of the infarcted myocardium. Despite initial excitement, recent clinical trials using non-homogenous stem cells preparations showed variable and mixed results. Selected CD133(+) hematopoietic stem cells are candidate cells with high potential. Herein, we report the one-year safety analysis on the initial 20 patients enrolled in the COMPARE-AMI trial, the first double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing the safety, efficacy, and functional effect of intracoronary injection of selected CD133(+) cells to placebo following acute myocardial infarction with persistent left ventricular dysfunction. At one year, there is no protocol-related complication to report such as death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia. In addition, the left ventricular ejection fraction significantly improved at four months as compared to baseline and remained significantly higher at one year. These data indicate that in the setting of the COMPARE-AMI trial, the intracoronary injection of selected CD133(+) stem cells is secure and feasible in patients with left ventricle dysfunction following acute myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".