MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review of transplantation of neural stem/progenitor cells for spinal cord injury

2013· review· en· W2068681537 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea J. Mothe, Charles H. Tator

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersKrembil FoundationOntario Neurotrauma FoundationPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationToronto General and Western Hospital FoundationChristopher and Dana Reeve FoundationDana Foundation
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryTransplantationNeural stem cellProgenitor cellStem cellRegeneration (biology)NeuroscienceMedicineBiologySpinal cordSurgeryCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a debilitating condition often resulting in paralysis, yet currently there is no effective treatment. Stem cell transplantation is a promising therapeutic strategy for promoting tissue repair after SCI. Stem cells offer a renewable source of cells with inherent plasticity for tissue regeneration. Neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) are multipotent cells that self-renew and are committed to the neural lineage, and thus, they are especially suited to SCI repair. NSPCs may differentiate into neural cells after transplantation into the injured spinal cord, replacing lost or damaged cells, providing trophic support, restoring connectivity, and facilitating regeneration. Here, we review experimental studies and considerations for clinical translation of NSPC transplantation for SCI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations163
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Developmental NeuroscienceSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207