Selected CD133 <sup>+</sup> Progenitor Cells to Promote Angiogenesis in Patients With Refractory Angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Refractory angina constitutes a clinical problem. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and the feasibility of transendocardial injection of CD133(+) cells to foster angiogenesis in patients with refractory angina. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this randomized, double-blinded, multicenter controlled trial, eligible patients were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, underwent an apheresis and electromechanical mapping, and were randomized to receive treatment with CD133(+) cells or no treatment. The primary end point was the safety of transendocardial injection of CD133(+) cells, as measured by the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event at 6 months. Secondary end points analyzed the efficacy. Twenty-eight patients were included (n=19 treatment; n=9 control). At 6 months, 1 patient in each group had ventricular fibrillation and 1 patient in each group died. One patient (treatment group) had a cardiac tamponade during mapping. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to efficacy parameters; however, the comparison within groups showed a significant improvement in the number of angina episodes per month (median absolute difference, -8.5 [95% confidence interval, -15.0 to -4.0]) and in angina functional class in the treatment arm but not in the control group. At 6 months, only 1 simple-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) parameter: summed score improved significantly in the treatment group at rest and at stress (median absolute difference, -1.0 [95% confidence interval, -1.9 to -0.1]) but not in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support feasibility and safety of transendocardial injection of CD133(+) cells in patients with refractory angina. The promising clinical results and favorable data observed in SPECT summed score may set up the basis to test the efficacy of cell therapy in a larger randomized trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".