An approach to personalized cell therapy in chronic complete paraplegia: The Puerta de Hierro phase I/II clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AIMS: Cell transplantation in patients suffering spinal cord injury (SCI) is in its initial stages, but currently there is confusion about the results because of the disparity in the techniques used, the route of administration, and the criteria for selecting patients. METHODS: We conducted a clinical trial involving 12 patients with complete and chronic paraplegia (average time of chronicity, 13.86 years; SD, 9.36). The characteristics of SCI in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were evaluated for a personalized local administration of expanded autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) supported in autologous plasma, with the number of MSCs ranging from 100 × 10(6) to 230 × 10(6). An additional 30 × 10(6) MSCs were administered 3 months later by lumbar puncture into the subarachnoid space. Outcomes were evaluated at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery through clinical, urodynamic, neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies. RESULTS: Cell transplantation is a safe procedure. All patients experienced improvement, primarily in sensitivity and sphincter control. Infralesional motor activity, according to clinical and neurophysiological studies, was obtained by more than 50% of the patients. Decreases in spasms and spasticity, and improved sexual function were also common findings. Clinical improvement seems to be dose-dependent but was not influenced by the chronicity of the SCI. CONCLUSION: Personalized cell therapy with MSCs is safe and leads to clear improvements in clinical aspects and quality of life for patients with complete and chronically established paraplegia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".