Functional Assays for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Pluripotency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Realizing the potential that human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) hold, both for the advancement of biomedical science and the development of new treatments for many human disorders, will be greatly facilitated by the introduction of standardized methods for assessing and altering the biological properties of these cells. The 7-day in vitro alkaline phosphatase colony-forming cell (AP(+)-CFC) assay currently offers the most sensitive and specific method to quantify the frequency of undifferentiated cells present in a culture. In this regard, it is superior to any phenotypic assessment protocol. The AP(+)-CFC assay, thus, provides a valuable tool for monitoring the quality of hESC cultures, and also for evaluating quantitative changes in pluripotent cell numbers following manipulations that may affect the self-renewal and differentiation properties of the treated cells. Two other methods routinely used to evaluate hESC pluripotency involve either culturing the cells under conditions that promote the formation of nonadherent differentiating cell aggregates (termed embryoid bodies), or transplanting the cells into immunodeficient mice to obtain teratomas containing differentiated cells representative of endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm lineages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".