Administration of mesenchymal stem cells during ECMO results in a rapid decline in oxygenator performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have attracted attention as a potential therapy for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). At the same time, the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased among patients with severe ARDS. To date, early clinical trials of MSCs in ARDS have excluded patients supported by ECMO. Here we provide evidence from an ex-vivo model of ECMO to suggest that the intravascular administration of MSCs during ECMO may adversely impact the function of a membrane oxygenator. The addition of clinical grade MSCs resulted in a reduction of flow through the circuit in comparison to controls (0.6 ±0.35 L min -1 vs 4.12 ± 0.03 L min -1 , at 240 minutes) and an increase in the transoygenator pressure gradient (101±9 mmHg vs 21±4 mmHg, at 240 minutes). Subsequent immunohistochemistry analysis demonstrated quantities of MSCs highly adherent to membrane oxygenator fibres. This study highlights the potential harm associated with MSC therapy during ECMO and suggests further areas of research required to advance the translation of cell therapy in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".