MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090239816 · doi:10.2174/157488811796575341

Adult Stem Cells and Bioengineering Strategies for the Treatment of Cerebral Ischemic Stroke

2011· review· en· W2090239816 on OpenAlexaff
F. Yu, Cindi M. Morshead

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Stem Cell Research & Therapy · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryStem cellNeural stem cellMedicineNeuroscienceRegeneration (biology)Central nervous systemStroke (engine)Traumatic brain injuryTransplantationSpinal cordBiologySurgeryCell biologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adult central nervous system (CNS) contains a population of neural stem cells, yet unlike many other tissues, has a very limited capacity for self-repair. Promoting tissue repair and functional recovery following CNS injury or disease is a high priority as there are currently no effective treatments towards this end for the treatment of disorders such as stroke, traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury. Recent advances in stem cell biology have offered a number of enticing potential avenues and we will discuss these possibilities along with the associated challenges as they pertain to stroke. We will consider exogenous therapies involving the transplantation of adult stem cells, and the mobilization of endogenous stem cells, as well as drug delivery and tissue engineering strategies that enhance and complement the cell based strategies. Keywords: Adult stem cells, neural regeneration, biomaterials, tissue engineering, drug delivery systems, stroke, central nervous system, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Surgery

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Stem Cell Research & TherapySame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207