Umbilical Cord Blood: A Unique Source of Pluripotent Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is estimated that almost 1 in 3 individuals in the United States might benefit from regenerative medicine therapy. Unfortunately, embryonic stem (ES) cell therapies are currently limited by ethical, political, biological and regulatory hurdles. Thus, for the foreseeable future, the march of regenerative medicine to the clinic will depend upon the development of non-ES cell therapies. Current sources of non-ES cells easily available in large numbers can be found in the bone marrow, adipose tissue and umbilical cord blood. Each of these types of stem cells has already begun to be utilized to treat a variety of diseases. This review will show that cord blood (CB) contains multiple populations of ES-like and other pluripotential stem cells, capable of giving rise to hematopoietic, epithelial, endothelial, and neural tissues both in vitro and in vivo. Cumulatively, the identification and isolation of these populations of pluripotent stem cells within cord blood represents a scientific breakthrough that could potentially impact every field of medicine, via their use in regenerative medicine. Thus, CB stem cells are amenable to treatment of a wide variety of diseases including cardiovascular, hepatic, ophthalmic, orthopaedic, neurological and endocrine diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".