Cell Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Potential Efficacy of Endothelial Progenitor Cells and Mesenchymal Stem Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) presents a challenging problem for health care providers, as effective long-term therapies have been elusive. An emerging paradigm for the pathogenesis of PAH is that endothelial cell injury and apoptosis at the level of the precapillary arteriole could be the initiating event in the pathogenesis of this disease. This hypothesis has spurred research on novel regenerative approaches using stem and progenitor cells. In this review, we compare findings from the latest preclinical and clinical studies using endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) and mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy to treat PAH. Additionally, we highlight recent advances in gene-enhanced cell therapy, an approach that promises to augment the therapeutic potential of EPCs and MSCs especially for the reversal of established PAH. These new regenerative approaches have shown great promise in preclinical studies; however, large, rigorously designed clinical studies will be necessary to establish clinical efficacy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".