MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144048333 · doi:10.33137/jns.v2i1.35890

An Overview of Stem Cell Therapies for Parkinson’s Disease

2021· article· en· W3144048333 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sara Faour, Aarthi Ashok

Bibliographic record

VenueUTSC s Journal of Natural Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced pluripotent stem cellNeural stem cellStem cellStem-cell therapyNeurogenesisEmbryonic stem cellNeuroscienceSubstantia nigraMesenchymal stem cellCell therapyDiseaseParkinson's diseaseMedicineBiologyPathologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is referred to as a neurodegenerative disease which is a disease that targets specific brain regions and is characterized by neuronal death. PD is believed to be caused by the loss of nerve cells in the substantia nigra (SN), a dopamine releasing area (Dickson, 2012). Current treatments are directed at alleviating pain symptoms and slowing down the progression of disease, however, no cure currently exists. Recent advances in stem cell therapies raise new possibilities to treat neurodegenerative diseases. Stem cells have the ability to differentiate into neural cells, and thus, could potentially be used to restore neurogenesis and neuroplasticity (Lunn et al., 2011). There exist several cell types that can be applied in therapy including embryonic stem cells (ESCs), neural stem cells (NSCs), induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). PD which has localized neural degeneration to the SN may serve as a better model for stem cell therapy and displays greater success when compared to other neurodegenerative diseases that spread to several brain regions (Vasic et al., 2019). This review aims to discuss the several approaches used in stem cell therapy as well as the current challenges and shortcomings of this cell-based therapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUTSC s Journal of Natural SciencesSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207