MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112724703 · doi:10.1161/hc37t1.094896

Enhanced Myocardial Angiogenesis by Gene Transfer With Transplanted Cells

2001· article· en· W2112724703 on OpenAlexaff
Terrence M. Yau, Karen Fung, Richard D. Weisel, Takeshiro Fujii, Donald A.G. Mickle, Ren‐Ke Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransfectionAngiogenesisTransplantationHeart transplantationVascular endothelial growth factorPerfusionAndrologyInternal medicinePathologyCell cultureBiologyVEGF receptors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND The combination of myocardial cell transplantation and angiogenic gene transfer may improve postinfarction left ventricular (LV) perfusion. We evaluated the angiogenic effect of heart cells transfected with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transplanted into a myocardial scar. METHODS AND RESULTS: Donor rat heart cells were transfected with plasmids encoding VEGF(165) and green fluorescence protein. Syngeneic adult rats underwent LV cryoinjury to create a transmural scar. Three weeks later, 4x10(6) transfected heart cells (n=14), untransfected heart cells (n=13), or culture medium (n=16) were transplanted into the center of the scar. After 5 weeks, LV function, quantitative histology, and regional blood flow were evaluated. Plates of heart cells transfected with VEGF(165) produced 6.1 times more intracellular VEGF than nontransfected cells. Capillary density (mean+/-SEM) per high-power field in the center of the myocardial scar was 1.1+/-0.02 in control rats, 3.9+/-0.11 in untransfected rats, and 6.3+/-0.11 in transfected rats (P=0.0002). Capillary density in the border zone around the scar was 1.9+/-0.03 in control rats, 6.4+/-0.10 in untransfected rats, and 8.7+/-0.16 in transfected rats (P=0.004). Regional blood flow within the scar was 8.8+/-0.8% of normalized flow in control hearts, 10.4+/-0.7% in hearts transplanted with untransfected cells, but 17.6+/-1.2% in hearts transplanted with transfected cells (P=0.03 versus control, P=0.07 versus nontransfected). There was no difference in LV function attributable to transplantation with transfected cells at the time point studied. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation of heart cells transfected with VEGF induced greater angiogenesis than transplantation of unmodified cells. Combined gene transfer and cell transplantation strategies may improve postinfarction LV perfusion and function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations111
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207