Intracardiac injection of matrigel induces stem cell recruitment and improves cardiac functions in a rat myocardial infarction model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matrigel promotes angiogenesis in the myocardium from ischemic injury and prevents remodelling of the left ventricle. We assessed the therapeutic efficacy of intracardiac matrigel injection and matrigel-mediated stem cell homing in a rat myocardial infarction (MI) model. Following MI, matrigel (250 μl) or phosphate-buffered solution (PBS) was delivered by intracardiac injection. Compared to the MI control group (MI-PBS), matrigel significantly improved left ventricular function (n= 11, P < 0.05) assessed by pressure-volume loops after 4 weeks. There is no significant difference in infarct size between MI-matrigel (MI-M; 21.48 ± 1.49%, n = 10) and MI-PBS hearts (20.98 ± 1.25%, n = 10). The infarct wall thickness of left ventricle is significantly higher (P < 0.01) in MI-M (0.72 ± 0.02 mm, n = 10) compared with MI-PBS (0.62 ± 0.02 mm, n = 10). MI-M hearts exhibited higher capillary density (border 130.8 ± 4.7 versus 115.4 ± 6.0, P < 0.05; vessels per high-power field [HPF; 400×], n = 6) than MI-PBS hearts. c-Kit(+) stem cells (38.3 ± 5.3 versus 25.7 ± 1.5 c-Kit(+) cells per HPF [630×], n = 5, P < 0.05) and CD34(+) cells (13.0 ± 1.51 versus 5.6 ± 0.68 CD34(+) cells per HPF [630×], n = 5, P < 0.01) were significantly more numerous in MI-M than in MI-PBS in the infarcted hearts (n = 5, P < 0.05). Intracardiac matrigel injection restores myocardial functions following MI, which may attribute to the improved recruitment of CD34(+) and c-Kit(+) stem cells.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".