Cellular transplantation: future therapeutic options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac transplantation is a complex undertaking and an imperfect solution to end-stage heart failure. Cellular transplantation has been proposed as an alternative solution; however, clinical trials at present are small and show variable results. The mechanisms behind stem cell therapy have not yet been elucidated. RECENT FINDINGS: Several large trials have been presented that address the question of bone marrow stem cells as therapy for acute myocardial infarction, and also the possible benefits of therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Although some trials show a modest improvement in ejection fraction or reduction of infarct size, other trials show no change with treatment. Fewer clinical data are available on the treatment of chronic left ventricular systolic function. Many questions remain such as what cell type to use, dosing, the ideal timing for therapy, and the technique of cell delivery. Finally, further research continues on the cellular milieu, enhancement of cell engraftment, proliferation, and survival. SUMMARY: This review briefly examines the background for stem cell therapy, as well as the larger clinical trials of stem cell therapy for acute myocardial infarction and chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and possible pharmacologic enhancement options.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".