MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Colony Forming Cell Assays for Human Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells

2012· article· en· W153421366 on OpenAlexaff
Bert Wognum, Ning Yuan, Becky Lai, Cindy Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsStemcell Technologies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgenitor cellHaematopoiesisStem cellBiologyEnumerationCord bloodBone marrowImmunologyCD34Cell cultureBlood cellMyeloidColony-forming unitCell biologyMolecular biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) present in small numbers in adult bone marrow (BM), peripheral blood (PB) and umbilical cord blood (CB) produce a heterogeneous pool of progenitors that can be detected in vitro using colony forming cell (CFC) assays. Hematopoietic progenitor cells proliferate and differentiate to produce colonies of maturing cells when cultured in a semisolid methylcellulose-based medium that is supplemented with suitable growth factors and other supplements. The colonies are then classified and enumerated in situ by light microscopy or an automated imaging instrument. CFC assays are important tools in basic hematology research but are also used by clinical cell processing laboratories to measure the progenitor cell content of BM, CB and mobilized PB (MPB) preparations used for cell transplantation. Standard CFC assays for human progenitor cells require a culture period of at least 14 days to enable optimal outgrowth and differentiation of the maximum number of CFCs in a cell preparation. In this chapter protocols are described for the detection and enumeration of myeloid multipotential progenitors and committed progenitors of the erythroid, monocyte, and granulocyte lineages in samples from human PB, MPB, BM, and CB. In addition protocols are described for a modified version of the CFC-assay that allows accurate enumeration of total CFC numbers in CB or MPB after a culture period of only 7 days, but without distinction of colony types.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207