Efficacy of Stem Cell Therapy in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Published studies seeking to improve survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) have poor results in humans, although there are several studies in animal models with positive results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that were published between March 2009 and March 2015 on stem cell therapy and survival in animal models and patients with ALS. A total of 714 articles were identified, and from these, we selected preclinical in vivo studies and retrospective clinical studies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis confirmed the efficacy of stem cell therapy in improving survival in preclinical trials, where a mean difference of 9.79 days (95% confidence interval: 4.45 - 15.14) in lifespan favored stem cell therapy. In contrast, the number of clinical studies is still insufficient to assess their effectiveness, and these studies only demonstrate the absence of serious adverse events. However, even this conclusion should be interpreted with caution because clinical studies are retrospective and heterogeneous and have an unsatisfactory quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".