MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971720502 · doi:10.2741/2855

Cellular cardiomyoplasty: routes of cell delivery and retention

2007· review· en· W1971720502 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in bioscience · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTherapeutic modalitiesRetention timeCellMedicineCell therapyCancer researchChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental and clinical studies have proven the feasibility of cellular cardiomyoplasty in treating the damaged myocardium following ischemic injury. Over the years, this field has exploded with different investigators trying different routes of cell delivery ranging from direct cell injection into the heart to peripheral intravenous delivery utilizing the various signaling mechanisms known. These different routes have resulted in a wide range of retention and engraftment of cells in the target tissues. In this review, we will explore the different modalities of cell delivery, the pros and cons of each route and the cellular retention and therapeutic efficacy of these routes. We will then look into the different theories that try to explain the observed retention and engraftment of cells in the target tissues. Finally, we will discuss various methods that can improve cellular retention and engraftment and hence better improvement in myocardial function.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it