Vascular Repair and Regeneration as a Therapeutic Target for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decade has seen substantial changes in our understanding of the pathobiology of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a severe and devastating disease without curative treatment. It is now accepted that injury to the endothelial cells of the pulmonary arteries is central for the subsequent development of lumen-obliterative lung vascular lesions. A variety of circulating and lung-resident progenitor and stem cells likely contribute to vascular integrity, and evidence for the presence of cells expressing stem and progenitor cell markers is found inside and in the immediate vicinity of pulmonary vascular lesions in PAH. The currently available vasodilator therapies mainly target enhanced vasoconstriction in the lung circulation and help to maintain or improve right ventricular function, but do not treat pulmonary vascular remodeling, the underlying cause of the disease. Vascular gene therapy and cell therapy with progenitor and stem cells is a progressing field in the context of the development of novel treatment options for PAH, but the majority of the studies are currently performed at the level of preclinical studies in animal models. The current review provides an overview of the current knowledge on cell- and gene therapy-based approaches for vascular repair and regeneration in PAH.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".