MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144112640 · doi:10.1186/1479-5876-7-15

Feasibility investigation of allogeneic endometrial regenerative cells

2009· article· en· W2144112640 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaohui Zhong, Amit N. Patel, Thomas E. Ichim, Neil H Riordan, Hao Wang, Wei-Ping Min, Erik J. Woods, M M Reid, Eduardo Mansilla, Gustavo H. Marín, Hugo Drago, Michael P. Murphy, Boris Minev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Translational Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesenchymal stem cellRegenerative medicineInduced pluripotent stem cellMedicineImmune systemStem cellAdverse effectPopulationRegeneration (biology)ImmunologyBioinformaticsCancer researchPathologyPharmacologyBiologyEmbryonic stem cellCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial Regenerative Cells (ERC) are a population of mesenchymal-like stem cells having pluripotent differentiation activity and ability to induce neoangiogenesis. In vitro and animal studies suggest ERC are immune privileged and in certain situations actively suppress ongoing immune responses. In this paper we describe the production of clinical grade ERC and initial safety experiences in 4 patients with multiple sclerosis treated intravenously and intrathecally. The case with the longest follow up, of more than one year, revealed no immunological reactions or treatment associated adverse effects. These preliminary data suggest feasibility of clinical ERC administration and support further studies with this novel stem cell type.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations126
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Translational MedicineSame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207