MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021033276 · doi:10.1002/jbio.200910079

The potential of biophotonic techniques in stem cell tracking and monitoring of tissue regeneration applied to cardiac stem cell therapy

2009· article· en· W2021033276 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian C. Wilson, I. Alex Vitkin, Dennis L. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biophotonics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStem cellRegenerative medicineStem-cell therapyRegeneration (biology)MedicineTissue engineeringCardiologyNeuroscienceClinical trialBiomedical engineeringInternal medicineCell biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of injected stem cells, leading to regeneration of ischemic heart tissue, for example, following coronary artery occlusion, has emerged as a major new option for managing 'heart attack' patients. While some clinical trials have been encouraging, there have also been failures and there is little understanding of the multiplicity of factors that lead to the outcome. In this overview paper, the opportunities and challenges in applying biophotonic techniques to regenerative medicine, exemplified by the challenge of stem cell therapy of ischemic heart disease, are considered. The focus is on optical imaging to track stem cell distribution and fate, and optical spectroscopies and/or imaging to monitor the structural remodeling of the tissue and the resulting functional changes. The scientific, technological, and logistics issues involved in moving some of these techniques from pre-clinical research mode ultimately into the clinic are also highlighted.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiophotonicsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207