An emerging cell‐based strategy in orthopaedics: endothelial progenitor cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to analyze the results of studies in the literature, which evaluated the use of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) as a cell-based tissue engineering strategy. METHODS: EPCs have been successfully used in regenerative medicine to augment neovascularization in patients after myocardial infarction and limb ischemia. EPCs' important role as vasculogenic progenitors presents them as a potential source for cell-based therapies to promote bone healing. RESULTS: EPCs have been shown to have prominent effects in promoting bone regeneration in several animal models. Evidence indicates that EPCs promote bone regeneration by stimulating both angiogenesis and osteogenesis through a differentiation process toward endothelial cell lineage and formation of osteoblasts. Moreover, EPCs increase vascularization and osteogenesis by increased secretion of growth factors and cytokines through paracrine mechanisms. CONCLUSION: EPCs offer the potential to emerge as a new strategy among other cell-based therapies to promote bone regeneration. Further investigations and human trials are required to address current questions with regard to biology and mechanisms of action of EPCs in bone tissue engineering.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".