MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215765083 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.756029

Cell Therapy: Types, Regulation, and Clinical Benefits

2021· review· en· W3215765083 on OpenAlexafffund
Abed El-Hakim El-Kadiry, Moutih Rafei, Riam Shammaa

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsMulticellular organismCell therapyStem cellStem-cell therapyRegenerative medicineCellDiseaseCancer therapyMedicineBioinformaticsBiologyCancerPathologyInternal medicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

century and continue to expand on investigational and investment grounds. Cell therapy includes stem cell- and non-stem cell-based, unicellular and multicellular therapies, with different immunophenotypic profiles, isolation techniques, mechanisms of action, and regulatory levels. Following the steps of their predecessor cell therapies that have become established or commercialized, investigational and premarket approval-exempt cell therapies continue to provide patients with promising therapeutic benefits in different disease areas. In this review article, we delineate the vast types of cell therapy, including stem cell-based and non-stem cell-based cell therapies, and create the first-in-literature compilation of the different "multicellular" therapies used in clinical settings. Besides providing the nuts and bolts of FDA policies regulating their use, we discuss the benefits of cell therapies reported in 3 therapeutic areas-regenerative medicine, immune diseases, and cancer. Finally, we contemplate the recent attention shift toward combined therapy approaches, highlighting the factors that render multicellular therapies a more attractive option than their unicellular counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations234
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207