Comparison of the myocardial clearance of endothelial progenitor cells injected early versus late into reperfused or sustained occlusion myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stem cell transplantation following AMI has shown promise for the repair or reduction of the amount of myocardial injury. There is some evidence that these treatment effects appear to be directly correlated to cell residence time. This study aims to assess the effects of (a) the timing of stem cell injection following myocardial infarction, and (b) flow milieu, on cell residence times at the site of transplantation by comparing three time points (day of infarction, week 1 and week 4-5), and two models of acute myocardial infarction (sustained occlusion or reperfusion). Twenty-one dogs received 2 injections of 30 million endothelial progenitor cells. The first injections were administered by epicardial (n = 8) or endocardial injection (n = 13) either on the day of infarction (n = 15) or at 1 week (n = 6). The second injections were administered by only endocardial injection (n = 18) 4 weeks following the first injection. Cell clearance half-lives were comparable between early and late injections. However, transplants into sustained occlusion infarcts resulted in slower cell clearance 77.1 ± 6.1 (n = 18) versus reperfused 59.4 ± 2.9 h (n = 21) p = 0.009. Sustained occlusion infarcts had longer cell retention in comparison to reperfusion whereas the timing of injection did not affect clearance rates. If the potential for myocardial regeneration associated with cell transplantation is, at least in part, linked to cell residence times, then greater benefit may be observed with transplants into infarcts associated with persistent coronary artery occlusion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".