MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 9633: Human Blood and Cardiac Stem Cells Synergize to Enhance Cardiac Repair When Co-transplanted Into Ischemic Myocardium

2012· article· en· W2583293846 on OpenAlexaff
Darryl R. Davis, Nicholas Latham, Bin Ye, Bu-Khanh Lam, Drew Kuraitis, Marc Ruel, Erik J. Suuronen, Duncan J. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOttawa Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStem cellCardiologyInternal medicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blood-derived circulatory angiogenic cells (CACs) and resident cardiac stem cells (CSCs) have both been shown to improve cardiac function after myocardial infarction (MI). However, whether one cell type is superior has long been an area of speculation with no head-to-head trial. In this study, we compared the effect of human CACs and CSCs, alone or in combination, on myocardial function in an immunodeficient mouse model of MI. Methods and Results- CACs and CSCs were cultured from left atrial appendages and blood samples obtained from patients undergoing clinically-indicated heart surgery. In hypoxic culture conditions designed to mirror ischemic myocardium, protein arrays demonstrated that CACs expressed a broader cytokine profile than CSCs (36 vs. 5, respectively; p<0.05) with 3 cytokines in common. Co-culture of CACs and CSCs further enhanced the production of stromal cell derived factor-1α and vascular endothelial growth factor (p<0.05). Conditioned media promoted equivalent vascular networks and endothelial progenitors recruitment with superior effects using co-cultured conditioned media (p<0.05 vs. single cell cultures). Intramyocardial injection of CACs or CSCs alone improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when injected one week after MI (p<0.05 vs. vehicle (PBS) or normal human dermal fibroblasts (NHDF); Figure). Co-transplantation of CACs and CSCs together improved LVEF to a greater extent than either stem cell therapy alone (p<0.05 vs. CAC or CSC injection alone). Conclusions- CACs and CSCs provide unique paracrine repertoires with equivalent effects on angiogenesis, stem cell migration and myocardial repair. Combination therapy with both cell types synergistically improves post infarct myocardial function greater than either therapy alone. This synergy is likely mediated by the complimentary paracrine signatures that promote revascularization and the growth of new myocardium.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→