Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- Creators: Frow, Emma
Description
the project led by Professor Emma Frow, researching of stem cell clinics focused on stem cell applications, adherence to FDA guidelines, and characterization of information available and physician credentials. Regenerative medicine clinics commonly offered stem cell therapy, but introduced platelet rich plasma (PRP) and prolotherapy as regenerative therapies.
PRP and Prolotherapy are individual treatments that were even suggested and used in combination with stem cell therapies. Prolotherapy predates PRP as a chemical irritant therapy originally used to sclerose tissues. Prolotherapy is meant to stimulate platelet derived growth factors release to improve tissue healing response. Prolotherapy shows negligible efficacy improvements over corticosteroids, but may have underlying side effects from being an irritant. PRP is a more modern therapy for improved healing. Speculations state initial use was in an open heart surgery to improve healing post-surgery. PRP is created via centrifugation of patient blood to isolate growth factors by removing serum and other biological components to increase platelet concentration. PRP is comparable to corticosteroid injections in efficacy, but as an autologous application, there are no side effects making it more advantageous. Growth factors induce healing response and reduce inflammation. Growth factors stimulate cell growth, proliferation, differentiation, and stimulate cellular response mechanism such as angiogenesis and mitogenesis. The growth factor stimulation of PRP and prolotherapy both assist stem cell proliferation. Additional research is needed to determine differential capacity to ensure multipotent stem cells regenerate the correct cell type from the increased differential capacity offered by growth factor recruitment. The application of combination therapy for stem cells is unsubstantiated and applications violate FDA ‘minimal manipulation’ guidelines.
PRP and Prolotherapy are individual treatments that were even suggested and used in combination with stem cell therapies. Prolotherapy predates PRP as a chemical irritant therapy originally used to sclerose tissues. Prolotherapy is meant to stimulate platelet derived growth factors release to improve tissue healing response. Prolotherapy shows negligible efficacy improvements over corticosteroids, but may have underlying side effects from being an irritant. PRP is a more modern therapy for improved healing. Speculations state initial use was in an open heart surgery to improve healing post-surgery. PRP is created via centrifugation of patient blood to isolate growth factors by removing serum and other biological components to increase platelet concentration. PRP is comparable to corticosteroid injections in efficacy, but as an autologous application, there are no side effects making it more advantageous. Growth factors induce healing response and reduce inflammation. Growth factors stimulate cell growth, proliferation, differentiation, and stimulate cellular response mechanism such as angiogenesis and mitogenesis. The growth factor stimulation of PRP and prolotherapy both assist stem cell proliferation. Additional research is needed to determine differential capacity to ensure multipotent stem cells regenerate the correct cell type from the increased differential capacity offered by growth factor recruitment. The application of combination therapy for stem cells is unsubstantiated and applications violate FDA ‘minimal manipulation’ guidelines.
ContributorsKrum, Logan (Author) / Frow, Emma (Thesis director) / Brafman, David (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
The development of computational systems known as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) offers the possibility of allowing individuals disabled by neurological disorders such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and ischemic stroke the ability to perform relatively complex tasks such as communicating with others and walking. BCIs are closed-loop systems that record physiological signals from the brain and translate those signals into commands that control an external device such as a wheelchair or a robotic exoskeleton. Despite the potential for BCIs to vastly improve the lives of almost one billion people, one question arises: Just because we can use brain-computer interfaces, should we? The human brain is an embodiment of the mind, which is largely seen to determine a person's identity, so a number of ethical and philosophical concerns emerge over current and future uses of BCIs. These concerns include privacy, informed consent, autonomy, identity, enhancement, and justice. In this thesis, I focus on three of these issues: privacy, informed consent, and autonomy. The ultimate purpose of brain-computer interfaces is to provide patients with a greater degree of autonomy; thus, many of the ethical issues associated with BCIs are intertwined with autonomy. Currently, brain-computer interfaces exist mainly in the domain of medicine and medical research, but recently companies have started commercializing BCIs and providing them at affordable prices. These consumer-grade BCIs are primarily for non-medical purposes, and so they are beyond the scope of medicine. As BCIs become more widespread in the near future, it is crucial for interdisciplinary teams of ethicists, philosophers, engineers, and physicians to collaborate to address these ethical concerns now before BCIs become more commonplace.
ContributorsChu, Kevin Michael (Author) / Ankeny, Casey (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Frow, Emma (Committee member) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor) / School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School for the Future of Innovation in Society (Contributor) / Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics (Contributor)
Created2016-05