MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031190236 · doi:10.1016/j.scr.2011.11.004

Fate of stem cell transplants in peripheral nerves

2011· article· en· W2031190236 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah K. Walsh, Ranjan Kumar, Joey Grochmal, Stephen W.P. Kemp, Joanne Forden, Rajiv Midha

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyStem cellSchwann cellRegeneration (biology)Cell biologyDermisNeuregulinIn vivoAnatomyImmunologyNeurosciencePathologyMedicineSignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While damaged peripheral nerves demonstrate some potential to regenerate, complete functional recovery remains infrequent, owing to a functional loss of supportive Schwann cells distal to the injury. An emerging solution to improve upon this intrinsic regenerative capacity is to supplement injured nerves with stem cells derived from various tissues. While many of these strategies have proven successful in animal models, few studies have examined the behavior of transplanted stem cells in vivo, including whether they survive and differentiate. In previous work, we demonstrated that cells derived from neonatal rodent dermis (skin-derived precursor cells, or SKPs) could improve regenerative parameters when transplanted distal to both acute and chronic nerve injuries in Lewis rats. The aim of this work was to track the fate of these cells in various nerve injury paradigms and determine the response of these cells to a known glial growth factor. Here, we report that SKPs survive, respond to local cues, differentiate into myelinating Schwann cells, and avoid complete clearance by the host's immune defenses for a minimum of 10weeks. Moreover, the ultimate fate of SKPs in vivo depends on the nerve environment into which they are injected and can be modified by inclusion of heregulin-1β.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.135 · 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

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell ResearchSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207