Current status and future perspectives on stem cell transplantation for spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous assessments of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries (SCI) have encountered challenges and constraints. Current research primarily emphasizes safety in early-phase clinical trials, while systematic reviews prioritize effectiveness, often overlooking safety and translational feasibility. This situation prompts inquiries regarding the readiness for clinical adoption. AIM: To offer an up-to-date systematic literature review of clinical trial results con cerning stem cell therapy for SCI. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across major medical databases [PubMed, Embase, Reference Citation Analysis (RCA), and Cochrane Library] up to October 14, 2023. The search strategy utilized relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to "spinal cord", "injury", "clinical trials", "stem cells", "functional outcomes", and "adverse events". Studies included in this review consisted of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the use of stem cell therapies for the treatment of SCI. RESULTS: In a comprehensive review of 66 studies on stem cell therapies for SCI, 496 papers were initially identified, with 237 chosen for full-text analysis. Among them, 236 were deemed eligible after excluding 170 for various reasons. These studies encompassed 1086 patients with varying SCI levels, with cervical injuries being the most common (42.2%). Bone marrow stem cells were the predominant stem cell type used (71.1%), with various administration methods. Follow-up durations averaged around 84.4 months. The 32.7% of patients showed functional impro vement from American spinal injury association Impairment Scale (AIS) A to B, 40.8% from AIS A to C, 5.3% from AIS A to D, and 2.1% from AIS B to C. Sensory improvements were observed in 30.9% of patients. A relatively small number of adverse events were recorded, including fever (15.1%), headaches (4.3%), muscle tension (3.1%), and dizziness (2.6%), highlighting the potential for SCI recovery with stem cell therapy. CONCLUSION: In the realm of SCI treatment, stem cell-based therapies show promise, but clinical trials reveal potential adverse events and limitations, underscoring the need for meticulous optimization of transplantation conditions and parameters, caution against swift clinical implementation, a deeper understanding of SCI pathophysiology, and addressing ethical, tumorigenicity, immunogenicity, and immunotoxicity concerns before gradual and careful adoption in clinical practice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".