MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316040088 · doi:10.5312/wjo.v14.i1.23

Comparative effectiveness of adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in the management of knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis

2023· article· en· W4316040088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sathish Muthu, Sandesh C Patil, Naveen Jeyaraman, Madhan Jeyaraman, Prakash Gangadaran, Ramya Lakshmi Rajendran, Eun Jung Oh, Manish Khanna, Ho Yun Chung, Byeong‐Cheol Ahn

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Orthopedics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMesenchymal stem cellOsteoarthritisWOMACRandomized controlled trialPopulationVisual analogue scaleBone marrowMeta-analysisAdipose tissueInternal medicineBioinformaticsPhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The management of articular cartilage defects presents many clinical challenges due to its avascular, aneural and alymphatic nature.Bone marrow stimulation techniques, such as microfracture, are the most frequently used method in clinical practice however the resulting mixed fibrocartilage tissue which is inferior to native hyaline cartilage.Other methods have shown promise but are far from perfect.There is an unmet need and growing interest in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering to improve the outcome for patients requiring cartilage repair.Many published reviews on cartilage repair only list human clinical trials, underestimating the wealth of basic sciences and animal studies that are precursors to future research.We therefore set out to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the translation of stem cell therapy to explore what research had been carried out at each of the stages of translation from bench-top (in vitro), animal (pre-clinical) and human studies (clinical) and assemble an evidence-based cascade for the responsible introduction of stem cell therapy for cartilage defects.Main body of abstract: This review was conducted in accordance to PRISMA guidelines using CINHAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases from 1st January 1900 to 30th June 2015.In total, there were 2880 studies identified of which 252 studies were included for analysis (100 articles for in vitro studies, 111 studies for animal studies; and 31 studies for human studies).There was a huge variance in cell source in pre-clinical studies both of terms of animal used, location of harvest (fat, marrow, blood or synovium) and allogeneicity.The use of scaffolds, growth factors, number of cell passages and number of cells used was hugely heterogeneous.Short conclusions: This review offers a comprehensive assessment of the evidence behind the translation of basic science to the clinical practice of cartilage repair.It has revealed a lack of connectivity between the in vitro, pre-clinical and human data and a patchwork quilt of synergistic evidence.Drivers for progress in this space are largely driven by patient demand, surgeon inquisition and a regulatory framework that is learning at the same pace as new developments take place.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.048
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations45
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OrthopedicsSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207