Comparison of Initial Cell Retention and Clearance Kinetics After Subendocardial or Subepicardial Injections of Endothelial Progenitor Cells in a Canine Myocardial Infarction Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Neither intravenous nor intracoronary routes provide targeted stem cell delivery to recently infarcted myocardium in sufficient quantities. Direct routes appear preferable. However, most prior studies have used epicardial injections, which are not practical for routine clinical use. The objective of this study was to compare cell retention and clearance kinetics between a subepicardial and a subendocardial technique. METHODS: We evaluated 7 dogs with each technique, using (111)In-tropolone-labeled endothelial progenitor cells and serial SPECT/CT for 15 d after injection. RESULTS: In vivo indium imaging demonstrated comparable degrees of retention: 57% +/- 15% for the subepicardial injections and 54% +/- 26% for the subendocardial injections. Clearance half-lives were also similar at 69 +/- 26 and 60 +/- 21 h, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that subendocardial injections, clinically more practical, show clearance kinetics comparable to those of subepicardial injections and will facilitate the ultimate clinical use of this treatment modality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".