Concise Review: Extracellular Vesicles Overcoming Limitations of Cell Therapies in Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recent advances in stroke therapy, current therapeutic concepts are still limited. Thus, additional therapeutic strategies are in order. In this sense, the transplantation of stem cells has appeared to be an attractive adjuvant tool to help boost the endogenous regenerative capacities of the brain. Although transplantation of stem cells is known to induce beneficial outcome in (preclinical) stroke research, grafted cells do not replace lost tissue directly. Rather, these transplanted cells like neural progenitor cells or mesenchymal stem cells act in an indirect manner, among which the secretion of extracellular vesicles (EVs) appears to be one key factor. Indeed, the application of EVs in preclinical stroke studies suggests a therapeutic role, which appears to be noninferior in comparison to the transplantation of stem cells themselves. In this short review, we highlight some of the recent advances in the field of EVs as a therapeutic means to counter stroke. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2017;6:2044-2052.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".