Impaired Fetal Lung Development can be Rescued by Administration of Extracellular Vesicles Derived from Amniotic Fluid Stem Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Incomplete lung development, also known as pulmonary hypoplasia, is a recognized cause of neonatal death and poor outcome for survivors. To date, there is no effective treatment that promotes fetal lung growth and maturation. Herein, we describe a novel stem cell-based approach that enhances fetal lung development via the administration of extracellular vesicles (EVs) derived from amniotic fluid stem cells (AFSCs). In experimental models of pulmonary hypoplasia, administration of AFSC-EVs promoted lung branching morphogenesis and alveolarization, and stimulated pulmonary epithelial cell and fibroblast differentiation. This regenerative ability was confirmed in two models of injured human lung cells, where human AFSC-EVs obtained following good manufacturing practices restored pulmonary epithelial homeostasis. AFSC-EV beneficial effects were exerted via the release of RNA cargo, primarily miRNAs, that regulate the expression of genes involved in fetal lung development. Our findings suggest that AFSC-EVs hold regenerative ability for underdeveloped fetal lungs, demonstrating potential for therapeutic application. One Sentence Summary Fetal lung regeneration via administration of extracellular vesicles derived from amniotic fluid stem cells
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".