MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104304407 · doi:10.1002/bies.200800204

Genomic analysis of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells: routes to reprogramming

2009· article· en· W2104304407 on OpenAlexaff
Ashlin Kanawaty, Jeffrey T. Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReprogrammingInduced pluripotent stem cellBiologyEmbryonic stem cellStem cellCellular differentiationEpigeneticsCell biologyEpigenesisLineage (genetic)Cell potencyDevelopmental biologyComputational biologyCellGeneticsGeneDNA methylationGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenomenal proliferation of scientific studies into the nature of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells following publication of the findings of Takahashi and Yamanaka little more than 2 years ago, have significantly expanded our understanding of cellular mechanisms relating to cell lineage, differentiation, and proliferation. While the full potential of iPS cell lineages for both scientific tool and therapeutic applications is as yet unclear, findings from several lines of investigation suggests that multipotential and terminally differentiated cells from an array of cell types are competent to undergo epigenetic reprogramming to a pluripotential state. The nature of this pluripotential state appears to be similar to, but not identical with that previously described for embryonic stem (ES) cells. Understanding the nature of this induced reprogrammed state will be critical to determining the full potential of iPS cells. Recently, this issue has been examined through an integrated analysis of the genome in fully and partially reprogrammed iPS cell lineages. These results provide a window onto the temporal components of reprogramming and suggest mechanisms by which the efficacy of reprogramming can be enhanced.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207