MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992624604 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-8-s4-o14

Transplantation of autologous bone marrow stem cells in patients with chronic spinal cord injury

2014· article· en· W1992624604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ricardo dos Santos, Ticiana Ferreira Larocca, Bruno Solano de Freitas Souza, Marcus Vinicius Mendonça, Milena Botelho Pereira Soares

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationSpinal cord injuryMesenchymal stem cellLaminectomyStem cellSurgeryBone marrowSpinal cordPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stem cells are being investigated by their potential use in regenerative medicine. There is currently a lack of effective clinical therapy for a number conditions, such as severe spinal cord injury (SCI). SCI can lead to chronic paraplegia, considered an irreversible condition. The administration of stem cells has been tested as a potential therapy for SCI. In the present study we evaluated the feasibility, safety and potential efficacy of autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) transplantation in patients with chronic complete SCI. We conducted a phase I/II, non-controlled study in 14 patients of both genders aging between 18-65 years, with ASIA A classified chronic traumatic SCI. Baseline somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and urodynamics were assessed before and after treatment. Pain rating was performed using the McGill Pain Questionnaire and a visual analogue score scale. Bone marrow-derived MSC were cultured and characterized by flow cytometry, cell differentiation assays and G-band karyotyping, showing morphological and phenotypic characteristics of MSC, as well as genetic stability. MSC were injected directly into the lesion following laminectomy and durotomy. Transplantation of bone marrow derived MSC was an overall safe procedure. All of the patients were discharged within 48 hours after surgery. Only one patient developed a post-operatory complication, evolving a liquoric fistula that was treated by an additional surgical procedure. Nine patients had improvements in urologic function. All patients displayed variable improvements in sensitivity and 8 patients developed lower limbs motor functional gains, principally in the hip flexors. All patients had variable improvements in ASIA global scores. Additionally, 6 patients had changes in the AIS score to grade B and one to grade C. A direct correlation between motor gain and lesion level and an inverse correlation between light touch gain and lesion volume were found 6 months after transplantation. One patient presented changes in SSEP 3 and 6 months after MSC transplantation. Although there is an abundance of studies describing the natural history of neurologic functional gains during the first year post-SCI, there is a lack of data regarding the degree of neurological recovery that may naturally occur during prolonged follow up investigation. In the present study, we enrolled only patients with chronic and complete spinal cord injury (ASIA A) whom had previously been subjected to decompressive surgery and lengthy rehabilitation protocols without acquiring significant motor or sensory gains. Although this was not a controlled study, based on the patient profiles and the expected spontaneous gains, our study showed potential benefits of MSC transplantation treatment, in variable degrees of motor and sensory improvements, clinical pain measures and urodynamics parameters. The use of MSC presents several advantages, such as isolation from bone marrow aspirates and large-scale expansion in cell culture procedures, which are feasible to be performed in autologous transplantations. We conclude that intralesional transplantation of autologous MSC in spinal cord injury patients is safe and feasible, and may provide some progressive benefits. We are currently beginning new clinical trials based on MSC therapy for SCI.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207