A pilot study of clinical cell therapies in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease dominated by progressive cognitive dysfunction causing significant social, economic, and medical crises. Cell therapy has demonstrated favorable effects for AD. This pilot study examined the safety and neurorestorative effects of the olfactory ensheathing cell (OEC), olfactory neuron (ON), and Schwann cell (SC) on patients with AD. Seven patients with AD were enrolled in this two-center, randomized, double-blind, and placebo- controlled cell therapy study with a subsequent 12-month follow-up. We randomly assigned one or two participants in OEC, ON, and SC therapy or OEC combined with ON and placebo control. All enrolled patients were injected cells or medium into the olfactory sub-mucosa. They got an assessment of Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Clinical Dementia Rating before treatment and 1, 3, 6, 12 months after treatment. We performed MRI or CT scans before treatment and 12 months after treatment. After integrating the results from the three evaluation methods, all cell types showed better results than a placebo control. ON and SC seem to exhibit more vital potential neurorestorative ability to enhance or convert the neurological functions of patients with AD, and OEC may help AD patients keep neurological functions stable. In this pilot study, there was no adverse or side-effect event. The results of this study strongly suggest conducting a phase II clinical trial of ON, SC, and OEC therapy to prove their neurorestorative effect on patients with AD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".