Drawbacks to Stem Cell Therapy in Cardiovascular Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stem cells seem to have unlimited potential for repairing injured tissues derived from cardiovascular diseases. Much as the initial euphoria over preclinical models has ushered in some skepticism, several reports have advised caution against over exuberance, as cellular therapy has both theoretical and reported safety concerns. Embryonic stem cells, skeletal myoblasts, bone marrow-derived stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells are current candidates for cell therapy in end-stage cardiovascular diseases. However, before large-scale clinical trials can take place, a few safety concerns have to be clarified, such as atherogenesis, postangioplasty or stenting restenosis, tumorigenesis, stem cell metastasis, stem cell-mobilized cytokine-related complications and arrhythmogenesis. In this review, potential ways to overcome these issues are discussed, including medical and gene manipulations, dedicated cell-purification techniques, antiarrhythmic cell therapy design, and new concepts such as using natural constructs. With these safety issues under control, stem cell therapy still has a promising future in the next decade.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".