MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053384841 · doi:10.1007/s12015-011-9259-1

Stem Cell Clinical Trials for Spinal Cord Injury: Readiness, Reluctance, Redefinition

2011· article· en· W2053384841 on OpenAlexafffund
Judy Illes, Joanne Chekryn Reimer, Brian K. Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Reviews and Reports · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsNeuroDevNetUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China Stem Cell and Translational ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesMichael Smith Health Research BCStem Cell Network
KeywordsClinical trialSpinal cord injuryMedicineStem cellStem-cell therapyTranslational researchClinical researchInformed consentPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationIntensive care medicineSpinal cordAlternative medicinePsychiatrySurgeryPathologyTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.404
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.440
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4040.440
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0160.013
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0340.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.362
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.088 · 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.

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

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell Reviews and ReportsSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207