MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029205367 · doi:10.1182/blood.v97.6.1876

Replicative stress after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: changes in cycling of CD34+CD90+ and CD34+CD90− hematopoietic progenitors

2001· article· en· W2029205367 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Thornley, D. Robert Sutherland, Rakash Nayar, Lillian Sung, Melvin H. Freedman, Hans A. Messner

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD90CD34HaematopoiesisProgenitor cellTransplantationBone marrowMedicineImmunologyStem cellBiologyCancer researchInternal medicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To further characterize hematopoietic "replicative stress" induced by bone marrow transplantation (BMT), the cell-cycle status of CD90+/- subsets of marrow CD34+ cells obtained 2 to 6 months after transplantation from 11 fully chimeric recipients was examined. Cycling profiles, derived by flow cytometry after staining with Hoechst 33342 and pyronin Y, were compared with those of 14 healthy marrow donors. Primitive CD34+CD90+ cells represented a smaller proportion of CD34+ cells in recipients (10% +/- 4% versus 19.6% +/- 5.3% in donors; P <.0001) and were more mitotically active, with the proportion of cells in S/G2/M nearly 4-fold higher than in donors (15.6% +/- 3% and 4.4% +/- 1.6%, respectively; P <.0001). By comparison, there was a modest increase in the proportion of CD34+CD90- progenitors in S/G2/M after BMT (10.9% +/- 1% vs 9.6% +/- 2% in donors; P =.04). Replicative stress after BMT is borne predominantly by cells in a diminished CD34+CD90+ population.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207