MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089383316 · doi:10.1038/mt.2009.240

Tomorrow, Interrupted?: Risk, Ethics, and Medical Advance in Gene Transfer

2009· letter· en· W2089383316 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Kimmelman

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Therapy · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene transferBiologyComputational biologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of Molecular Therapy, Deakin et al. ask a provocative question: is the field of gene transfer becoming so averse to risk that important discoveries and advances are being postponed?1 Gene transfer, so the authors argue, has received more than its share of negative publicity from unexpected toxicities. These tragic events may have triggered an overly cautious mindset among investigators.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.023
Scholarly communication0.0140.021
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0370.041
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular TherapySame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207