MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhanced Reclosure of Surgically Induced Spinal Open Neural Tube Defects in Chick Embryos by Injecting Human Bone Marrow Stem Cells Into the Amniotic Cavity

2010· article· en· W2027674851 on OpenAlexaff
Do‐Hun Lee, Ji Hoon Phi, Seung‐Ki Kim, Byung-Kyu Cho, Seung Up Kim, Kyu‐Chang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeural tubeEmbryoMedicineStem cellAndrologyAmniotic fluidCellAnatomyFibroblastIn vitroPathologyCell biologyFetusBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reclosure-promoting capacity of a neural stem cell line (F3) and a human bone marrow stem cell line (B10) injected into the amniotic cavity of spinal open neural tube defects (ONTDs) of chick embryos of Hamburger and Hamilton stage 18 or 19. METHODS: Fifteen chick embryos that survived the procedure were obtained for each of 4 groups: untreated control, F3-, B10-, and HFF-1 (human foreskin fibroblast)-treated groups. Embryos in the control group underwent ONTD surgery but no cell injection. RESULTS: Compared with the untreated control and HFF-1 groups, the B10 group showed enhanced reclosure at 3, 5, and 7 days after injection, whereas the F3 group did not. B10 cells were not incorporated into reclosed neural tubes but simply covered ONTDs during the process of reclosure. F3 cells did not cover ONTDs. The cell survival of F3 cells exposed to the chick amniotic fluid in vitro for 48 hours was significantly lower than that of B10 cells. CONCLUSION: The results confirmed that B10 cells enhance reclosure of ONTDs by covering and protecting neural tissues, not by direct cell incorporation. The lack of reclosure capacity in the F3 group may be related to the poor survival of F3 cells in the amniotic fluid.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
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.

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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207