Myoblast transplantation: the current status of a potential therapeutic tool for myopathies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implantation of cultured myogenic cells into the body (myoblast transplantation) is an experimental strategy that is being explored for the potential treatment of myopathies. Its potential benefits should be: (1) to slow down or to stop muscle degeneration, and/or (2) to increase force in wasted muscles. For these objectives, myoblast transplantation may act by two actions: (1) genetic complementation (as a vehicle of normal genes in the case of genetic myopathies), and (2) increasing the myogenic pool of the muscle. During the last decade, myoblast transplantation seemed stagnant in a contradiction of experiments producing good results in mice, against the poor results of human trials. This contradiction was apparent, since the conditions used in mouse models were largely different from those used in dystrophic patients. Our monkey experiments demonstrated that promising results can be observed in large muscles of primates, but under conditions that differ from those previously used in patients. These conditions are: (1) an appropriate immunosuppression, and (2) a careful distribution of sufficient quantities of myoblasts into the recipient muscles. Most of the work on myoblast transplantation is addressed to improve this method by: (1) reducing or avoiding the toxicity of sustained immunosuppression, (2) favoring donor-myoblast migration into the recipient muscle, and (3) defining the factors implicated in the early donor-cell survival following intramuscular implantation. Other research subjects in this field are the potential use of pluripotent stem cells instead of satellite cells, and the potential delivery of the exogenous myogenic cells by the blood stream.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".