A long‐term efficacy of allogeneic bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in myocardial repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells (AMSCs) are currently undergoing clinical trials for myocardial repair. However, their long‐term therapeutic efficacy has not been established. We conducted a six month comparative study on allogeneic and syngeneic MSCs using a MI rat model. We found AMSCs were immunoprivileged soon after implantation and produced a robust cardiac functional improvement similar to syngeneic MSCs in the first three months after treatment. After two weeks implantation, the differentiated AMSCs acquired immunogenic phenotype associated with increased cell surface expression of MHC class I and II molecules, rendering them immune rejected and diminishing their ability to prevent heart failure after 6 months of treatment. These results suggest that AMSCs have short‐term benefits for heart repair, and reconcile inconsistent findings from earlier studies by identifying the unknown biphasic immune response to AMSCs. Differentiation induced immune rejection supports the need for future studies to modify the late immunogenic phenotype of MSCs to prevent rejection and achieve long term benefits of AMSCs for cardiac repair. Supported by HSFO and CIHR.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".