Use of Repeating Dispensers to Increase the Efficiency of the Intramuscular Myogenic Cell Injection Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intramuscular myoblast transplantation in humans and nonhuman primates requires precise repetitive cell injections very close to each other. Performed with syringes operated manually throughout large regions, this procedure takes a lot of time, becoming tiring and thus imprecise. We tested two repetitive dispensers with Hamilton syringes as cell injection devices to facilitate this procedure. Monkeys received intramuscular allotransplantations of beta-galactosidase-labeled myoblasts, using either a monosyringe or a multisyringe repeating dispenser. The monosyringe repeating dispenser allowed performing cell injections faster and easier than with a manually operated syringe. The multisyringe dispenser accelerated the procedure still more, but it was not ergonomic. Biopsies of the myoblast-injected sites 1 month later showed abundant beta-galactosidase-positive myofibers, with the same density and morphological pattern observed following myoblast transplantation with a syringe operated manually. We recommend the monosyringe repeating dispenser for myoblast transplantation in skeletal muscles and maybe in the heart.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".