Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cystinosis is a rare disorder, and, accordingly, progress on the understanding and treatment of this disease has been relatively slow. Although cystinosis was identified over 100 years ago, the history of cystinosis is marked by a few sudden leaps forward in our understanding rather than by a sustained research effort fuelled by the larger research community. Major conceptual break-throughs include (a) its discovery in 1903, (b) recognition of the renal Fanconi syndrome, (c) realization that tissue accumulation of cystine reflects a defective channel in the lysosomal membrane, (d) translation of this discovery to trials of cysteamine, (e) discovery of the CTNS gene, and (f) report of successful stem cell therapy in the cystinotic mouse. This paper focuses on the importance management lessons from these milestones and the potential new therapeutic strategies which may be looming in the near future.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".