MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621459279 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.05.032

Cell-Based Therapy Using Umbilical Cord Blood for Novel Indications in Regenerative Therapy and Immune Modulation: An Updated Systematic Scoping Review of the Literature

2017· article· en· W2621459279 on OpenAlexafffund
Mina Rizk, Joseph Aziz, Risa Shorr, David Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersOttawa Hospital FoundationCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineImmune modulationUmbilical cordCell therapyImmune systemRegenerative medicineStem-cell therapyIntensive care medicineCellSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell-based therapy using umbilical cord blood (UCB) is being used increasingly in novel applications. To balance heightened public expectations and ensure appropriateness of emerging cell-based treatment choices, regular evidence-based assessment of novel UCB-derived therapies is needed. We performed a systematic search of the literature and identified 57 studies (814 patients) for analysis. Sixteen of these studies (353 patients) included a control group for comparison. The most commonly reported novel indication for therapy was neurologic diseases (25 studies, 476 patients), including studies of cerebral palsy (12 studies, 276 patients). Other indications included diabetes mellitus (9 studies, 149 patients), cardiac and vascular diseases (7 studies, 24 patients), and hepatic diseases (4 studies, 106 patients). Most studies administered total nucleated cells, mononuclear cells, or CD34-selected cells (31 studies, 513 patients), whereas 20 studies described the use of UCB-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. The majority of reports (46 studies, 627 patients) described cellular products obtained from allogeneic sources, whereas 11 studies (187 patients) used autologous products. We identified 3 indications where multiple prospective controlled studies have been published: 4 of 4 studies reported clinical benefit in cerebral palsy, 1 of 3 studies reported benefit for cirrhosis, and 1 of 3 studies reported biochemical response in type 1 diabetes), although heterogeneity among the studies precluded meaningful pooled analysis of results. We anticipate a more clear understanding of the clinical benefit for specific indications once more controlled studies are reported. Patients should continue to be enrolled on registered clinical trials for novel therapies. Blood establishments, transplantation centers, and regulatory bodies need to prepare for greater clinical demand.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0240.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.343
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 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

Citations50
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207