Fate and function of exogenously administered mesenchymal stromal cells: current insights and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The in vivo fate of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), including their clearance, interaction with host tissues, and persistence, remains incompletely understood following systemic or local clinical administration to patients. Although immune-mediated clearance mechanisms, such as triggering of the instant blood-mediated inflammatory reaction, activation of coagulation and complement pathways, apoptosis and efferocytosis have been identified, their contributions to MSC function and efficacy are still under investigation. To address these knowledge gaps, an international panel of experts in MSC biology and clinical regenerative medicine convened to assess current evidence and define key unanswered questions. Discussions were structured around three thematic domains: (i) biodistribution and mechanisms of action following systemic delivery; (ii) biological implications of local or depot-based administration and (iii) the dynamics of MSC persistence and clearance in vivo. A major focus was on the role of MSC apoptosis and its immunological consequences, particularly interactions between apoptotic MSCs, phagocytes and endothelial barriers. This perspective highlights the most urgent research questions identified during the meeting and in follow-up discussions and proposes experimental strategies to move beyond traditional cell tracking toward interrogating functional persistence, immune modulation and delivery context. Addressing these gaps will deepen our understanding of MSC behavior in vivo and guide the development of safer, more predictable and more effective MSC-based interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".