MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766621542 · doi:10.1002/sctm.17-0126

Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy in Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies

2017· review· en· W2766621542 on OpenAlexafffund
Sajit Augustine, Marc T. Avey, Brittany Harrison, Tiffany Locke, Mona Ghannad, David Moher, Bernard Thébaud

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells Translational Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersLung Health FoundationOttawa Hospital Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaMedicineMeta-analysisMesenchymal stem cellSystematic reviewStudy heterogeneityOncologyBioinformaticsInternal medicinePathologyMEDLINEPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Extreme prematurity is the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age. Currently, there is no treatment for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), the most common complication of extreme prematurity. Experimental studies in animal models of BPD suggest that mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are lung protective. To date, no systematic review and meta-analysis has evaluated the preclinical evidence of this promising therapy. Our protocol was registered with Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies prior to searching MEDLINE (1946 to June 1, 2015), Embase (1947 to 2015 Week 22), Pubmed, Web of Science, and conference proceedings (1990 to present) for controlled comparative studies of neonatal animal models that received MSCs or cell free MSC-derived conditioned media (MSC-CM). Lung alveolarization was the primary outcome. We used random effects models for data analysis and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. We screened 990 citations; 25 met inclusion criteria. All used hyperoxia-exposed neonatal rodents to model BPD. MSCs significantly improved alveolarization (Standardized mean difference of −1.330, 95% confidence interval [CI −1.724, −0.94, I2 69%]), irrespective of timing of treatment, source, dose, or route of administration. MSCs also significantly ameliorated pulmonary hypertension, lung inflammation, fibrosis, angiogenesis, and apoptosis. Similarly, MSC-CM significantly improved alveolarization, angiogenesis, and pulmonary artery remodeling. MSCs, tested exclusively in hyperoxic rodent models of BPD, show significant therapeutic benefit. Unclear risk of bias and incomplete reporting in the primary studies highlights nonadherence to reporting standards. Overall, safety and efficacy in other species/large animal models may provide useful information for guiding the design of clinical trials.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.030
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.483
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.050 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations172
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cells Translational MedicineSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207