How can clinical safety and efficacy concerns in stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury be overcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord injury (SCI) can lead to severe neurological dysfunction. Despite scientific and medical advances, clinically effective regenerative therapies including stem cells are lacking for SCI. AREAS COVERED: This paper discusses translational challenges related to the safe, effective use of stem cells for SCI, with a focus on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), neural stem cells (NSCs), Schwann cells (SCs), olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs), oligodendrocyte precursor cells (OPCs), embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). We discuss approaches to enhance the efficacy of cell-based strategies by i) addressing patient heterogeneity and enhancing patient selection; ii) selecting cell type, cell source, cell developmental stage, and delivery technique; iii) enhancing graft integration and mitigating immune-mediated graft rejection; and iv) ensuring availability of cells. Additionally, we review strategies to optimize outcomes including combinatorial use of rehabilitation and discuss ways to mitigate potential risks of tumor formation associated with stem cell-based strategies. EXPERT OPINION: Basic science research will drive translational advances to develop stem cell-based therapies for SCI. Genetic, serological, and imaging biomarkers may enable individualization of cell-based treatments. Moreover, combinatorial strategies will be required to enhance graft survival, migration and functional integration, to enable precision-based intervention.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".