In vivo myocardial distribution of multipotent progenitor cells following intracoronary delivery in a swine model of myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There are few data comparing the fate of multipotent progenitor cells (MPCs) used in cardiac cell therapy after myocardial infarction (MI). To document in vivo distribution of MPCs delivered by intracoronary (IC) injection. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using an anterior MI swine model, near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence was used for in vivo tracking of labelled MPCs [mesenchymal stromal (MSCs), bone marrow mononuclear (BMMNCs), and peripheral blood mononuclear (PBMNCs)] cells early after IC injection. Signal intensity ratios (SIRs) of injected over non-injected (reference) zones were used to report NIR fluorescence emission. Following IC injection, significant differences in mean SIR were documented when MSCs were compared with BMMNCs [1.28 +/- 0.10 vs. 0.77 +/- 0.11, P < 0.001; 95% CI (0.219, 0.805), respectively] or PBMNCs [1.28 +/- 0.10 vs. 0.80 +/- 0.14, P = 0.005; 95% CI (0.148, 0.813), respectively]. Differences were maintained during the 60 min tracking period, with only the MSC-injected groups continuously emitting NIR fluorescence (SIR>1). This is correlated with greater cell retention for MSCs relative to mononuclear cells. However, there was evidence of MSC-related vessel plugging in some swine. CONCLUSION: Our in vivo NIR fluorescence findings suggest that MPC distribution and retention immediately after intracoronary delivery vary depending on cell population and could potentially impact the clinical efficacy of cardiac cell therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".