MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997476382 · doi:10.2741/2204

Clinical applications of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor

2006· review· en· W1997476382 on OpenAlexafffund
Lillian Sung

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in bioscience · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBlood disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program
KeywordsNeutropeniaMedicineGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorStem cellClinical trialTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationHaematopoiesisGranulocyteOncologyIntensive care medicineImmunologyInternal medicineChemotherapyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a naturally occurring potent neutrophil growth factor. Recombinant human G-CSF has been developed by pharmaceutical companies, and since the late 1980's, multiple clinical trials have explored its efficacy in a variety of medical conditions. These include various inherited and acquired neutropenia, as well as mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells and progenitors for transplantation. Interestingly, in several type of inherited neutropenia where no randomized controlled studies have ever been conducted, its chronic use is considered critical for survival and deemed a standard of care. Unfortunately, it the settings of cancer treatment-related neutropenia and post hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, controversy still prevails whether universal usage of drug is cost effective despite innumerous randomized clinical trials. This review will focus on the clinical applications of G-CSF in the setting of inherited and acquired bone marrow failure, cancer treatment-related neutropenia and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations27
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in bioscienceSame topicBlood disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207