MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056009313 · doi:10.1517/14712598.2011.548800

Intramuscular cell transplantation as a potential treatment of myopathies: clinical and preclinical relevant data

2011· review· en· W2056009313 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Skuk, Jacques P. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecWilfrid Laurier UniversityCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkeletal muscleTransplantationMedicinePathologyBioinformaticsBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Myopathies produce deficits in skeletal muscle function and, in some cases, literally progressive loss of skeletal muscles. The transplantation of cells able to differentiate into myofibers is an experimental strategy for the potential treatment of some of these diseases. AREAS COVERED: Among the two routes used to deliver cells to skeletal muscles, that is intramuscular and intravascular, this paper focuses on the intramuscular route due to our expertise and because it is the most used in animal experiments and the only tested so far in humans. Given the absence of recent reviews about clinical observations and the profusion based on mouse results, this review prioritizes observations made in humans and non-human primates. The review provides a vision of cell transplantation in myology centered on what can be learned from clinical trials and from preclinical studies in non-human primates and leading mouse studies. EXPERT OPINION: Experiments on myogenic cell transplantation in mice are essential to quickly identify potential treatments, but studies showing the possibility to scale up the methods in large mammals are indispensable to determine their applicability in humans and to design clinical protocols.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations55
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207