MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2391855754 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.3435

Effect of adipose tissue-derived stem cell injection in a rat model of urethral fibrosis

2016· article· en· W2391855754 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Premsant Sangkum, Faysal A. Yafi, Hogyoung Kim, Mostafa Bouljihad, Manish Ranjan, Amrita Datta, Sree Harsha Mandava, Suresh C. Sikka, Asim B. Abdel‐Mageed, Wayne J.G. Hellstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsFibrosisMedicineAdipose tissueUrethral strictureSalineUrologyWestern blotPathologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyUrethraChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate the therapeutic effect of adi-pose tissue-derived stem cells (ADSCs) in a rat model of urethral fibrosis. METHODS: ADSCs). Rat ADSCs were harvested from rat inguinal fat pads. All study animals were euthanized at two weeks after urethral injection. Following euthanasia, rat urethral tissue was harvested for histologic evaluation. Type I and III collagen levels were quantitated by Western blot analysis. RESULTS: TGF-β1 injection induced significant urethral fibrosis and increased collagen type I and III expression (p<0.05). Significant decrease in submucosal fibrosis and collagen type I and III expression were noted in the ADSCs group compared with the urethral fibrosis group (p<0.05). TGF-β1 induced fibrotic changes were ameliorated by injection of ADSCs. CONCLUSIONS: Local injection of ADSCs in a rat model of urethral fibrosis significantly decreased collagen type I and III. These findings suggest that ADSC injection may prevent scar formation and potentially serve as an adjunct treatment to increase the success rate of primary treatment for urethral stricture disease. Further animal and clinical studies are needed to confirm these results.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207