MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005163116

Positron emission tomography quantification of stem cells in cardiovascular disease

2014· dissertation· en· W7005163116 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiological and pharmacological studies of plants
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionTSG101TubulopathyHemopericardiumDiafiltrationFusible alloy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stem cell therapy is emerging as a possible method for treating many diseases and disorders, such as cardiovascular disease. In particular, stem cells may be able to revive the dead tissue caused by acute myocardial infarction (heart attack). Adipose-derived stem cells were labelled with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) particles, for imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), respectively, and injected into several rats following induced myocardial infarction. Stem cell retention in the heart was investigated following three injection sites; two within the heart (intramyocardial and left intraventricular), and one easily accessible vein (tail vein). The PET and MR images were registered and the initial distributions analyzed using region of interest (ROI) analysis, to determine which injection method would result in the highest stem cell retention in the infarcted heart. The ROI results determined that the intramyocardial injection had the highest % injected dose (%ID) in the heart with 14 +/- 4%, followed by left intraventricular and tail vein with %IDs of 3.6 +/- 0.8% and 1.2 +/- 0.6%, respectively. The results indicate that stem cell delivery via intramyocardial injection should be utilized for optimal retention in the heart.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicBiological and pharmacological studies of plantsFrench-language works237,207