ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2026
Adipose-Derived Stem Cells in Ophthalmic Regenerative Medicine: From Cell Replacement to Precision Engineering.
Review in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adipose‑derived stem cells (ASCs) have emerged as a promising cell source in ophthalmic regenerative medicine, attributed to their accessibility, differentiation potential, and paracrine functions. Despite compelling preclinical evidence, clinical outcomes remain unsatisfactory. Departing from the conventional disease‑oriented categorization, this review adopts the cognitive evolution of ASC therapeutic mechanisms as its organizational thread, synthesizing evidence from 158 studies across six ophthalmic subspecialties. Four sequential paradigms are identified: (1) multilineage differentiation and cell replacement; (2) paracrine signaling and microenvironmental modulation; (3) extracellular vesicles and cell‑free therapy; and (4) engineering modifications and precision delivery. Cross‑disciplinary synthesis reveals a fundamental contradiction: the inherent capacity of living ASCs to sense and respond to local microenvironments directly conflicts with the pharmacological requirements for standardization and predictability. Five major translational bottlenecks are distilled, namely, the absence of functional potency standards, the rodent‑to‑human translational gap, insufficient therapeutic window studies, low‑level clinical evidence outside oculoplastics, and regulatory ambiguity. A corresponding roadmap is proposed, centered on functional potency evaluation, engineered cell‑free products, and an ophthalmic‑specific long‑term safety framework. This review provides a unified theoretical framework for contextualizing the prospects of ASC‑based therapies and offers strategic guidance to facilitate their clinical translation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42631831What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.