MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161592432 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-48

Efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stromal cells in preclinical models of acute lung injury: a systematic review protocol

2014· review· en· W2161592432 on OpenAlexafffund
Manoj M. Lalu, David Moher, John C. Marshall, Dean Fergusson, Shirley H. J. Mei, Malcolm Macleod, Gilly Griffin, Alexis F. Turgeon, Michael A. Rudnicki, Jason Fishman, Marc T. Avey, Becky Skidmore, Jeremy Grimshaw, Duncan J. Stewart, Kavita Singh, Lauralyn McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoCanadian Council on Animal CareUniversity of OttawaHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusOttawa Hospital
FundersCanada Research ChairsNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in ResearchCanadian Blood ServicesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineARDSMesenchymal stem cellLungIntensive care medicineRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryClinical trialBioinformaticsPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in humans is caused by an unchecked proinflammatory response that results in diffuse and severe lung injury, and it is associated with a mortality rate of 35 to 45%. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs; 'adult stem cells') could represent a promising new therapy for this syndrome, since preclinical evidence suggests that MSCs may ameliorate lung injury. Prior to a human clinical trial, our aim is to conduct a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of MSC therapy versus controls in preclinical models of acute lung injury that mimic some aspects of the human ARDS. METHODS/DESIGN: We will include comparative preclinical studies (randomized and non-randomized) of acute lung injury in which MSCs were administered and outcomes compared to animals given a vehicle control. The primary outcome will be death. Secondary outcomes will include the four key features of preclinical acute lung injury as defined by the American Thoracic Society consensus conference (histologic evidence of lung injury, altered alveolar capillary barrier, lung inflammatory response, and physiological dysfunction) and pathogen clearance for acute lung injury models that are caused by infection. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science will be constructed and reviewed by the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) process. Search results will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data from eligible studies will be extracted, pooled, and analyzed using random effects models. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and individual study reporting will be assessed according to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will comprehensively summarize the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in preclinical models of acute lung injury. Our results will help translational scientists and clinical trialists to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to perform a human clinical trial. These results may also guide future acute lung injury preclinical and clinical research.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0410.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.350 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207