Concise Review: Rational Use of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity of stem and progenitor cells to stimulate cardiac regeneration has been studied for almost 20 years, with very promising preclinical data and mixed clinical results. Several cell types have been studied, identified by their cell surface markers, differentiation capacity and their secreted growth factors. Bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been found to have potent regenerative capacity, through multiple mechanisms, including mesoderm lineage differentiation, immunomodulation, and paracrine stimulation. MSCs also secrete exosomes and microvesicles, which themselves contain potent angiogenic cytokines or mRNA molecules with effects on their local milieu. This concise review summarizes the mechanisms of MSC-based cardiac regeneration and highlighting results from molecular and preclinical studies. We also discuss clinical trial results to date, and ongoing studies. Furthermore, we discuss novel approaches for the enhancement of MSC based cardiac regeneration, such as genetic modification. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2018;7:543-550.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it