The Ultimate Source of Human Hematopoietic Stem Cells: Thinking Outside the Marrow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to reconstitute cellular components of the hematopoietic system has immense utility in several areas of clinical medicine. These include replacement of cells responsible for innate and acquired immunity, providing red cells for oxygen transport, and ultimately the ability to recover hematopoietic function by repopulating all lineages comprising the entire blood system. This latter property functionally defines the mammalian hematopoietic stem cell (HSC). Recently, human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have been suggested to be a viable source of transplantable hematopoietic cells. Although the number of human ESCs is virtually unlimited, the ability to efficiently differentiate adequate numbers of cells that possess hematopoietic repopulating ability remains to be determined. Achieving this goal is confounded by the difficulty of experimentally generating murine hematopoietic cell types capable of in vivo reconstitution from mouse ESC, suggesting that similar limitations may arise using human counterparts. Although the use of human ESCs and adult somatic HSCs have their independent merits, a direct comparison between HSCs derived from each source using similar assays will ultimately be required to determine the best source for clinical use. Here we will summarize the results from efforts to differentiate and assay primitive hematopoietic cells derived from ESCs, and compare these findings to similar parameters using putative mammalian HSCs harvested from the adult.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".