Adipose-Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction Differentially Expands Breast Progenitors in Tissue Adjacent to Tumors Compared to Healthy Breast Tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafts supplemented with adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction are used in reconstructive and cosmetic breast procedures. Stromal vascular fraction contains adipose-derived stem cells that are thought to encourage wound healing, tissue regeneration, and graft retention. Although use of stromal vascular fraction has provided exciting perspectives for aesthetic procedures, no studies have yet been conducted to determine whether its cells contribute to breast tissue regeneration. The authors examined the effect of these cells on the expansion of human breast epithelial progenitors. METHODS: From patients undergoing reconstructive breast surgery following mastectomies, abdominal fat, matching tissue adjacent to breast tumors, and the contralateral non-tumor-containing breast tissue were obtained. Ex vivo co-cultures using breast epithelial cells and the stromal vascular fraction cells were used to study the expansion potential of breast progenitors. Breast reduction samples were collected as a source of healthy breast cells. RESULTS: The authors observed that progenitors present in healthy breast tissue or contralateral non-tumor-containing breast tissue showed significant and robust expansion in the presence of stromal vascular fraction (5.2- and 4.8-fold, respectively). Whereas the healthy progenitors expanded up to 3-fold without the stromal vascular fraction cells, the expansion of tissue adjacent to breast tumor progenitors required the presence of stromal vascular fraction cells, leading to a 7-fold expansion, which was significantly higher than the expansion of healthy progenitors with stromal vascular fraction. CONCLUSIONS: The use of stromal vascular fraction might be more beneficial to reconstructive operations following mastectomies compared with cosmetic corrections of the healthy breast. Future studies are required to examine the potential risk factors associated with its use. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".