MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403586020 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.04.010

Heterogeneity in Studies of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells to Treat or Prevent Graft-versus-Host Disease: A Scoping Review of the Evidence

2016· review· en· W2403586020 on OpenAlexaff
Mina Rizk, Madeline Monaghan, Risa Shorr, Natasha Kekre, Christopher Bredeson, David Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMesenchymal stem cellStromal cellHost (biology)DiseaseGraft-versus-host diseasePathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective treatments are lacking for the treatment of steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a major cause of morbidity and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have demonstrated promise but there is uncertainty regarding their clinical effectiveness. A systematic scoping review of the literature was performed to characterize the heterogeneity of published studies and identify opportunities for standardization. Thirty studies were identified, including 19 studies (507 patients) addressing the treatment of acute or chronic GVHD and 11 prevention studies (277 patients). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the age and diagnoses of study subjects, intensity and specifics of the conditioning regimens, degree of HLA matching, and source of hematopoietic cells. MSCs were derived from bone marrow (83% of studies), cord blood (13%), or adipose tissue (3%) and were cryopreserved from third-party allogeneic donors in the majority of studies (91% of prevention studies and 63% of treatment studies). Culture conditions and media supplements were highly variable and characterization of MSCs did not conform to all International Society for Cellular Therapy criteria in any study. MSCs were harvested from cell culture at passage 1 to 7 and the dosage of MSCs ranged from 0.3 to 10 × 10(6)/kg, using varying schedules of administration. Treatment response criteria were not standardized and effectiveness in controlled treatment studies (5 studies) was unconvincing. Details of actively recruiting trials suggest heterogeneity still persists with only 53% of registered trials describing the use of standard GVHD response criteria and few detailing methods of MSC manufacturing. Future studies will need to make substantial coordinated efforts to reduce study heterogeneity and clarify the role of MSCs in GVHD.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations71
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207