MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987737240 · doi:10.1097/mot.0b013e3282f42486

Transplantation of human hematopoietic repopulating cells: mechanisms of regeneration and differentiation using human???mouse xenografts

2008· review· en· W1987737240 on OpenAlexaff
Borhane Guezguez, Mickie Bhatia

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Organ Transplantation · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoming (biology)Stem cellHaematopoiesisTransplantationBiologyBone marrowEx vivoImmunologyHematopoietic stem cellRegeneration (biology)Cancer researchCell biologyIn vivoMedicineInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Some of the common clinical applications of hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplantation are used for treatment of leukemic malignancies, bone marrow/hematopoietic failure, and immunodeficiencies. Several inherent limitations of this procedure have restricted its use, including failed recipient bone marrow recovery and tumor relapse. Experimentally, ex-vivo manipulations and in-vivo xenotransplant assays used as clinical surrogates of HSC transplantation aim to improve quality and number of donor cells by uncovering the cellular and molecular mechanisms controlling HSC proliferation and differentiation upon transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: One of the major research goals in hematopoietic stem cell transplant biology is the manipulation of factors affecting self-renewal, mobilization, and homing/retention of donor cells in the recipient. Transgenic systems in the mouse are frequently used as tools to dissect the individual pathways that influence these properties. Recently, identification of factors and chemicals that target HSCs or their 'niche', a supportive microenvironment for these stem cells in the bone marrow, has become a new avenue of interest to develop a novel therapeutic approach for enhancing HSC repopulation ability and engraftment efficiency. SUMMARY: This review focuses on recent progress in HSC ex-vivo manipulation and transplant biology, and the potential improvements arising from identification of molecular players and cellular components of the microenvironment niche.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Organ TransplantationSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207