Clinical relevance of circulating angiogenic cells in patients with ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are circulating angiogenic cells with endothelial features associated with risk for stroke. We aimed to delve into their functional characteristics. EPCs were isolated and cultured from Ischemic Stroke (IS) patients and predictors of their variance evaluated. METHODS: This is a single-center observational study evaluating 187 consecutively hospitalized patients with IS. EPCs were isolated from blood samples. The number of circulating angiogenic cells (CACs), colony-forming units (CFU-ECs) and the emergence of late outgrowths endothelial cells (LOECs) were counted. We collected clinical variables and measured the stromal cell-derived factor 1 alpha (SDF1α) serum levels. We also examined the relative telomere length and the expression of osteogenic gene markers in CACs. RESULTS: CACs counts and CFU-ECs colony numbers were positively correlated (rho = 0.41, p < 0.001, n = 187). We found significant differences according to whether thrombolytic treatment was performed in the distribution of CFU-ECs (odds ratio (OR) = 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-6.35; p = 0.042) and CACs (OR = 4.45; 95% IC 1.2-15.5; p = 0.012). The main determinants of CACs variation were the number of risks factors, thrombolysis treatment, arterial hypertension, LOECs occurrence, and the vascular endothelial growth factor expression, whereas CFU-ECs variations depended on hemoglobin content and the relative reduction in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) criteria. The main predictors of LOECs appearance were thrombolysis and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the relevance of patient risk factors and treatments in the analysis of the functional properties of EPCs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".