MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979349099 · doi:10.1136/hrt.2005.084004

Feasibility of trans-endocardial cell transplantation in chronic ischaemia

2006· letter· en· W1979349099 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saskia L.M.A. Beeres, J. J. Bax, Katja Zeppenfeld, Petra Dibbets‐Schneider, Marcel P. M. Stokkel, Willem E. Fibbe, Ernst E. van der Wall, Martin J. Schalij, Douwe E. Atsma

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationMyocardial infarctionAnginaCardiologyInternal medicineIschemiaPerfusionEndocardiumSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell transplantation is currently being explored as a novel therapeutic option for patients with chronic myocardial ischaemia. The main goal of bone marrow cell transplantation is to augment blood flow in ischaemic myocardium through induction of angiogenesis. Improved collateral perfusion and enhanced left ventricular function have already been documented in animal models with chronic myocardial ischemia.1 Until now, most clinical studies were carried out in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Only two studies containing ⩽10 patients assessed the safety and feasibility of autologous bone marrow cell transplantation in patients with angina and ischaemia.2,3 Further studies are needed to confirm the safety, feasibility and effectiveness reported in these pilot trials. The present phase I/II study tested the feasibility, safety and clinical effects of trans-endocardial transplantation of autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells in patients with drug-refractory angina and myocardial ischaemia. Moreover, we aimed to determine whether cell transplantation is associated with improved myocardial function and perfusion by means of technetium-99m tetrofosmin gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Patients with ischaemia on technetium-99m tetrofosmin SPECT and with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III or IV angina pectoris (despite maximal tolerated medical treatment) without options for conventional revascularisation were included in the study. An independent expert panel that reviewed the angiograms determined the ineligibility for surgical or percutaneous revascularisation. Seventeen patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were considered for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were acute myocardial infarction <6 months before enrolment, history of malignancy, renal dysfunction or unexplained haematological or biochemical abnormalities. The institutional …

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 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207