MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984042787 · doi:10.2144/05386it01

Real-Time Imaging of Myoblast Transplantation Using the Human Sodium Iodide Symporter

2005· article· en· W1984042787 on OpenAlexafffund
Manaf Bouchentouf, Basma Benabdallah, Marcel Dumont, Joël Rousseau, Luc Jobin, Jacques P. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueBioTechniques · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de QuébecUniversité Laval
KeywordsSodium-iodide symporterSymporterTransplantationMyocyteC2C12Duchenne muscular dystrophyTransfectionIn vivoIn vitroMedicineSodium iodideCancer researchChemistryInternal medicineEndocrinologyMyogenesisBiologyGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quantification of the graft success is a key element to evaluate the efficiency of cellular therapies for several pathologies such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This study describes an approach to evaluate the success of myoblast transplantation (i.e., survival of the transplanted cells and the muscle fibers formed) by real-time imaging. C2C12 myoblasts were first transfected with a plasmid containing the human sodium iodide symporter (hNIS) gene. Specific uptake of the radioactive sodium pertechnetate (Na99mTcO4) by the hNIS-positive myoblasts was demonstrated in vitro, while only background level of Na99mTcO4 was observed within the control cells. The cells were then transplanted into the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle of mdx (X-linked dystrophic) mice. Following intraperitoneal administration of Na99mTcO4, scintigraphies were performed to detect hNIS-dependent Na99mTcO4 uptake within the TA. This approach permitted to evaluate the progression of the transplantation and the graft success without having to biopsy the animals during the follow-up period.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioTechniquesSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207