MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stem cell-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage in preterm infants

2019· review· en· W2904991971 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Romantsik, Matteo Bruschettini, Alvaro Moreira, Bernard Thébaud, David Ley

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsStem Cell NetworkOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMesenchymal stem cellStem-cell therapyClinical trialStem cellRandomized controlled trialPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage (GMH-IVH) remains a substantial issue in neonatal intensive care units worldwide. Current therapies to prevent or treat GMH-IVH are limited. Stem cell-based therapies offer a potential therapeutic approach to repair, restore, and/or regenerate injured brain tissue. These preclinical findings have now culminated in ongoing human neonatal studies. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of stem cell-based interventions for prevention or treatment of germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage (GM-IVH) in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 7 January 2019); Embase (1980 to 7 January 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 7 January 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We attempted to identify randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing (1) stem cell-based interventions versus control; (2) mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) of type or source versus MSCs of other type or source; (3) stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs of type or source versus stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs of other type or source; or (4) MSCs versus stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs. For prevention studies, we included extremely preterm infants (less than 28 weeks' gestation), 24 hours of age or less, without ultrasound diagnosis of GM-IVH; for treatment studies, we included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation), of any postnatal age, with ultrasound diagnosis of GM-IVH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each of the included trials, two review authors independently planned to extract data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, type and source of MSCs, other stem cell-based interventions) and assess the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). Primary outcomes considered in this review are all-cause neonatal mortality, major neurodevelopmental disability, GM-IVH, and extension of pre-existing non-severe GM-IVH. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 769 references. We did not find any completed studies for inclusion. One randomised controlled trial is currently registered and ongoing. Five phase 1 trials are described in the excluded studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently no evidence is available to show the benefits or harms of stem cell-based interventions for treatment or prevention of GM-IVH in preterm infants.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207