MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392869611 · doi:10.5500/wjt.v14.i1.89674

Current status and future perspectives on stem cell transplantation for spinal cord injury

2024· article· en· W4392869611 on OpenAlex
Edoardo Agosti, Marco Zeppieri, Andrea Pagnoni, Marco Maria Fontanella, Alessandro Fiorindi, Tamara Ius, Pier Paolo Panciani

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Transplantation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryStem cellClinical trialStem-cell therapyTransplantationCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisAdverse effectMEDLINEPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicineSpinal cordPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.350 · 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