MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140336088 · doi:10.2174/157340311798220502

Stem Cell Therapy in Heart Diseases: A Review of Selected New Perspectives,Practical Considerations and Clinical Applications

2011· review· en· W2140336088 on OpenAlexaff
Eltyeb Abdelwahid, Tomasz Siminiak, Luiz César Guarita-Souza, Katherine Athayde Teixeira de Carvalho, Pasquale Gallo, Winston Shim, Gianluigi Condorelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Cardiology Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmbryonic stem cellTransplantationStem-cell therapyStem cellMesenchymal stem cellHeart failureMyocardial infarctionCell therapyMyocyteRegeneration (biology)BioinformaticsCardiologyPathologyCancer researchInternal medicineCell biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Degeneration of cardiac tissues is considered a major cause of mortality in the western world and is expected to be a greater problem in the forthcoming decades. Cardiac damage is associated with dysfunction and irreversible loss of cardiomyocytes. Stem cell therapy for ischemic heart failure is very promising approach in cardiovascular medicine. Initial trials have indicated the ability of cardiomyocytes to regenerate after myocardial injury. These preliminary trials aim to translate cardiac regeneration strategies into clinical practice. In spite of advances, current therapeutic strategies to ischemic heart failure remain very limited. Moreover, major obstacles still need to be solved before stem cell therapy can be fully applied. This review addresses the current state of research and experimental data regarding embryonic stem cells (ESCs), myoblast transplantation, histological and functional analysis of transplantation of co-cultured myoblasts and mesenchymal stem cells, as well as comparison between mononuclear and mesenchymal stem cells in a model of myocardium infarction. We also discuss how research with stem cell transplantation could translate to improvement of cardiac 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · 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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Cardiology ReviewsSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207