MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098117165 · doi:10.1089/scd.2014.0354

CellCAN: A Unique Enabler of Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy in Canada

2014· article· en· W2098117165 on OpenAlexaffabout
Denis-Claude Roy, Anne-Marie Alarco, Rosario Isasi

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells and Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityStem Cell NetworkHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegenerative medicineClinical trialEnablingCell therapyTransplantationCorporationEngineering ethicsBusinessBiologyStem cellBioinformaticsMedicineEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy (RMCT) is paving the way for the most innovative and promising medical breakthroughs of the 21st century. Indeed, its curative potential is immense and builds on the already proven benefits of stem cell transplantation. Successful and broad clinical implementation of RMCT, as well as reaping of its full social and economic benefits, is contingent on the resolution of a range of issues. The CellCAN network, a not-for-profit corporation, was created to tackle these challenges, gathering the key forces of the numerous Canadian organizations involved in basic research, assay development, manufacturing, clinical research, clinical trials, legal and ethical regulations, and policies, all working to move RMCT forward. CellCAN creates a national enterprise by bringing together a community of renowned researchers, industries, clinicians, funders and regulators, and aligning it with cell-handling facilities involved in processing cell products and other products for cell therapy clinical trials to ensure capacity and know-how for stem cell research and efficient execution of cell therapy clinical trials. CellCAN is uniquely positioned to accelerate the implementation of RMCT in Canada and disseminate novel developments and findings, thus significantly contributing to the world's knowledge in cellular therapeutics. As such, the CellCAN model could also serve as a useful benchmark to accelerate RMCT implementation in other countries.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cells and DevelopmentSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207