Smooth Muscle Cells Transplantation is better than Heart Cells Transplantation for Improvement of Heart Function in Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle cell transplantation may delay or prevent cardiac dilation in dilated cardiomyopathy. The present study was designed to compare the effects of the heart function of smooth muscle cell (SMCs) auto-transplantation and heart cell (CMs) allo-transplantation in dilated cardiomyopathic hamsters, and to determine which cells are better for cell transplantation. CMs and SMCs were isolated from BIO 53.58 hamsters, and cultured for transplantation. CMs, SMCs (4 X 10(6) cells each) or culture medium were transplanted into 17 weeks old BIO 53.58 hamsters to achieve CM transplantation (CMTx), SMC transplantation (SMCTx), and controls (Con) (N=10 each). Cyclosporine (5 mg/Kg) was administered subcutaneously to CMTx. Healthy hamsters (sham, N=6) were used to compare heart functions. Four weeks after transplantation, heart function was evaluated in all groups using a Langendorff perfusion apparatus. Histology demonstrated severe focal myocardial necrosis in the dilated cardiomyopathic hearts. CMTx and SMCTx formed huge muscle tissue in the dilated myocardium. Sham, SMCTx, and CMTx had a better heart function than Con (p < 0.01), and SMCTx had a better peak systolic pressure (p < 0.05) and developed pressure (p < 0.05) than CMTx at any balloon volume. However, sham and SMCTx were not statistically different. SMCTx and CMTx formed muscle tissue and produced better heart function in the cardiomyopathic hearts, and SMCTx showed better systolic and developed pressures than CMTx, even though they were similar in other functions. Significantly, SMCTx had heart functions, which were similar to those of healthy hamster's hearts.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".