Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cancer stem cell (CSC) or cancer-initiating cancer (C-IC) model has garnered considerable attention over the past several years since Dick and colleagues published a seminal report showing that a hierarchy exists among leukemic cells. In more recent years, a similar hierarchical organization, at the apex of which exists the CSC, has been identified in a variety of solid tumors. Human CSCs are defined by their ability to: (i) generate a xenograft that histologically resembles the parent tumor from which it was derived, (ii) be serially transplanted in a xenograft assay thereby showing the ability to self-renew (regenerate), and (iii) generate daughter cells that possess some proliferative capacity but are unable to initiate or maintain the cancer because they lack intrinsic regenerative potential. The emerging complexity of the CSC phenotype and function is at times daunting and has led to some confusion in the field. However, at its core, the CSC model is about identifying and characterizing the cancer cells that possess the greatest capacity to regenerate all aspects of the tumor. It is becoming clear that cancer cells evolve as a result of their ability to hijack normal self-renewal pathways, a process that can drive malignant transformation. Studying self-renewal in the context of cancer and CSC maintenance will lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms driving tumor growth. This review will address some of the main controversies in the CSC field and emphasize the importance of focusing first and foremost on the defining feature of CSCs: dysregulated self-renewal capacity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it