CD34+ Hematopoietic Stem Cell Counts in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the presence and quantity of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) through a meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search of the databases identified the observational and interventional studies reporting baseline CD34+ cell counts in AD patients. The data on mean counts and the measures of variation were extracted. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using common and random effects models to compare the CD34+ cell counts between the AD patients and controls. Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using tau2, tau, and I2 statistics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the ROBINS-I tool. Patients: Five studies were included, comprising four observational studies and one open-label trial, with a total of 271 participants (139 AD patients and 132 controls). Results: The meta-analysis indicated an increase in CD34+ cell counts of the AD patients when compared to the controls. The common effects model showed a moderate SMD of 0.2964 (95% CI:0.0490–0.5437). However, the random effects model yielded a non-significant SMD of 0.2326 (95% CI: −0.4832–0.9484). Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 87.1%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: AD patients may exhibit higher circulating CD34+ cell counts than the controls, but substantial heterogeneity and potential biases limit definitive conclusions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it