MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235113178 · doi:10.1111/jpc.14901_19

SAFETY OF SIBLING CORD BLOOD CELL INFUSION FOR CHILDREN WITH CEREBRAL PALSY

2020· article· en· W4235113178 on OpenAlexaff
Michelia Mcbride, Jonathan Williman, Emma Best, Tony Walls, David R. Murdoch, Manish Sadarangani, Cameron Grant, Natalie G. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paediatrics and Child Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral palsySiblingCord bloodPediatricsAnesthesiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common physical disability of childhood but has no cure. Stem cells have the potential to improve brain injury and have been proposed as a therapy for CP. However, many questions remain unanswered about the most appropriate cell type, timing of infusions, dose required, and associated risks. Therefore, human safety and efficacy trials are necessary to progress knowledge in the field. Aims: The primary objective of this study was to gain preliminary information on the safety of 12/12 HLA matched sibling umbilical cord blood cell (UCBC) infusions in children aged 1-16 years with CP who do not have immune suppression. The secondary objectives of this study were to gain preliminary information on the effectiveness of 12/12 HLA matched UCBC infusion relative to baseline, the length of time that infused matched sibling UCBCs remain within recipients and the mechanistic activity of UCBCs. Methods: This was a single group open-labelled study of 12 participants. UCBCs were sourced from TGA licenced private cord blood banks. The study first recruited 6 participants with severe CP before recruiting 6 participants with all motor severities with a review by an independent data and safety monitoring committee of the study data after every 3 participants prior to continuing the study. Children were monitored for adverse events and the duration that donor cells were detected using a highly sensitive surrogate chimerism analysis of donor DNA. Assessments at baseline, 3, and 12 months investigated the safety and change in gross motor, fine motor, cognitive, and quality of life outcomes from baseline. Results: UBCB cell infusions appeared to be safe, with only one serious adverse event, an anaphylactic reaction to cryoprotectant, a known potential risk of stem cell infusion. No participant had detectable donor DNA at or beyond six months post-infusion, indicating no evidence of engraftment and low risk of graft versus host disease. There was little change in gross motor function from baseline at 3 months. However, assessment with the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test (QUEST) implied improvement greater than could be expected from natural history and maturation at 3 months post-infusion for some of the children (a change from baseline of 8.57 (95% CI -0.93 -18.07) at 3 months, compared with a change of 4.89 which is regarded as clinically important. Conclusion: Preliminary results suggest that there are no serious adverse reactions related to UCBCs and that there is not cell persistence, but there may be some gains in the quality of upper limb function. However, numbers were too small to make any firm conclusions. Further appropriately powered studies are needed to provide information for families and professionals as to whether this is a worthwhile treatment option.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Paediatrics and Child HealthSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207