MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003909801 · doi:10.1517/14712598.2011.556615

Autologous cell therapy for cardiac repair

2011· review· en· W2003909801 on OpenAlexafffund
Darryl R. Davis, Duncan J. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCell therapyStem-cell therapyRegenerative medicineStem cellIntensive care medicineMyocardial infarctionExpert opinionClinical trialBioinformaticsTransplantationSurgeryCardiologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: While new therapies have improved the prognosis of patients post acute myocardial infarction, many patients still suffer from irreversible damage and live with the debilitating consequences. However, with the advent of stem cell-based therapies, future treatments may enable us to harness the potential of autologous stem cells to prevent and even reverse heart damage. AREAS COVERED: We outline the results of the early clinical trials using autologous cell therapy and highlight the hurdles and limitations that still need to be addressed. We also discuss new approaches that hold promise for developing the next generations of autologous cell therapy by exploring strategies to enhance their regenerative activity using biomaterials, genetic modification, optimal cell types and small molecule preconditioning. EXPERT OPINION: Autologous cell therapy may be on the cusp of being widely adopted for the treatment of patients with large areas of myocardial damage. Techniques to enhance the activity and retention of autologous cell products may represent the next generation of this therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.097 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207