MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922473367 · doi:10.1186/s13287-019-1172-6

Regenerative cell therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension in animal models: a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2922473367 on OpenAlexafffund
Colin Suen, Duncan J. Stewart, Joshua Montroy, Christopher Welsh, Brendan M. Levac, Neil Wesch, Alexander Zhai, Dean Fergusson, Lauralyn McIntyre, Manoj M. Lalu

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Research & Therapy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOttawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds AssociationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyPulmonary hypertensionVentricleInternal medicineStem-cell therapyTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare disease characterized by widespread loss of the pulmonary microcirculation and elevated pulmonary arterial pressures leading to pathological right ventricular remodeling and ultimately right heart failure. Regenerative cell therapies could potentially restore the effective lung microcirculation and provide a curative therapy for PAH. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy of regenerative cell therapies in preclinical models of PAH. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was developed and executed. We included preclinical animal studies using regenerative cell therapy in experimental models of PAH. Primary outcomes were right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP). The secondary outcome was right ventricle/left ventricle + septum weight ratio (RV/LV+S). Pooled effect sizes were undertaken using random effects inverse variance models. Risk of bias and publication bias were assessed. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 1285 studies, of which 44 met eligibility criteria. Treatment with regenerative cell therapy was associated with decreased RVSP (SMD - 2.10; 95% CI - 2.59 to - 1.60), mPAP (SMD - 2.16; 95% CI - 2.97 to - 1.35), and RV/LV+S (SMD - 1.31, 95% CI - 1.64 to - 0.97). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that cell modification resulted in greater reduction in RVSP. The effects on RVSP and mPAP remained statistically significant even after adjustment for publication bias. The majority of studies had an unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical studies of regenerative cell therapy demonstrated efficacy in animal models of PAH; however, future studies should consider incorporating design elements to reduce the risk of bias. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Suen CM, Zhai A, Lalu MM, Welsh C, Levac BM, Fergusson D, McIntyre L and Stewart DJ. Efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension in animal models: a preclinical systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2016;5:89. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CAMARADES-NC3Rs Preclinical Systematic Review & Meta-analysis Facility (SyRF). http://syrf.org.uk/protocols/ . Syst Rev 5:89, 2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.088 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell Research & TherapySame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207