Cellular Transplants in China: Observational Study from the Largest Human Experiment in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In China, fetal brain tissue has been transplanted into the lesions of more than 400 patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Anecdotal reports have been the only basis for assuming that the procedure is safe and effective. OBJECTIVE: To compare available reports to the experiences and objective findings of patients who received pre-operative and postoperative assessments before and up to 1 year after receiving cellular implants. METHODS: Independent observational study of 7 chronic SCI subjects undergoing surgery by Dr Hongyun Huang in Beijing. Assessments included lesion location by magnetic resonance imaging, protocol of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA), change in disability, and detailed history of the perioperative course. RESULTS: Inclusion and exclusion criteria were not clearly defined, as subjects with myelopathies graded ASIA A through D and of diverse causes were eligible. Cell injection sites did not always correlate with the level of injury and included the frontal lobes of a subject with a high cervical lesion. Complications, including meningitis, occurred in 5 subjects. Transient postoperative hypotonicity may have accounted for some physical changes. No clinically useful sensorimotor, disability, or autonomic improvements were found. CONCLUSIONS: The phenotype and the fate of the transplanted cells, described as olfactory ensheathing cells, are unknown. Perioperative morbidity and lack of functional benefit were identified as the most serious clinical shortcomings. The procedures observed did not attempt to meet international standards for either a safety or efficacy trial. In the absence of a valid clinical trials protocol, physicians should not recommend this procedure to patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".