MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137361572 · doi:10.1080/10731190701730172

50th Anniversary of Artificial Cells: Their Role in Biotechnology, Nanomedicine, Regenerative Medicine, Blood Substitutes, Bioencapsulation, Cell/Stem Cell Therapy and Nanorobotics

2007· review· en· W2137361572 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Ming Swi Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Cells Blood Substitutes and Biotechnology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicChemical Reactions and Isotopes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRegenerative medicineNanoroboticsNanomedicineStem cellCell therapyStem-cell therapyMedicineNanotechnologyBiologyCell biologyMaterials scienceNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was 50 years ago that the first “artificial cells” were prepared [[1], [2]]. This was not an attempt to reproduce biological cells, but to use available basic knowledge to prepare simple systems...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.033

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Cells Blood Substitutes and BiotechnologySame topicChemical Reactions and IsotopesFrench-language works237,207