c-kit-Immunopositive vascular progenitor cells populate human coronary in-stent restenosis but not primary atherosclerotic lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progress in the treatment of human in-stent restenosis (ISR) is hampered by an imprecise understanding of the nature of the cells that occlude vascular stents. Recent studies suggest that circulating vascular progenitor cells may mediate vascular repair and lesion formation. Moreover, functional endothelial progenitor cells appear to play a protective role in attenuating vascular lesion formation. Hence, we sought to answer two important questions: 1). Are primitive cells found in ISR lesions? 2). Is the abundance of cultured angiogenic cells (CACs) in patients with ISR different from that in patients with non-ISR lesions or normal controls? Human coronary atherectomy tissue from 13 ISR, 6 postangioplasty restenosis (RS), and 14 primary (PR) atherosclerotic lesions, as well as 15 postmortem coronary artery cross sections from young individuals without atherosclerosis, were studied. All 13 ISR and 4 of 6 RS tissue specimens contained cells that immunolabeled for the primitive cell marker c-kit and smooth muscle alpha-actin, whereas the intima and media of PR lesions and normal arteries were devoid of c-kit-immunopositive cells. The abundance of peripheral blood mononuclear cell-derived CACs was assessed in 10 patients with ISR, 6 patients with angiographically verified patent stents, and 6 individuals with no clinical evidence of coronary artery disease. CACs were less abundant in ISR patients than in non-ISR controls (13.9 +/- 3.1 vs. 22.3 +/- 6.7 cells/high-power field, P < 0.05), and both of these groups had fewer CACs than non-coronary artery disease patients (37.6 +/- 3.8, P < 0.05). These findings suggest a unique pathogenesis for ISR and RS lesions that involves c-kit-immunopositive smooth muscle cells. Moreover, the paucity of CACs in patients with ISR may contribute to the pathogenesis of ISR, perhaps because of attenuated reendothelialization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".