MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137592705 · doi:10.1093/gerona/57.7.b257

Replicative Senescence Revisited

2002· review· en· W2137592705 on OpenAlexaff
Roxanne D. Marcotte, E. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series A · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSenescenceTelomereCellular senescenceBiologyPhenotypeCellular AgingEffectorCell biologyPaceCell cycleGeneticsCellGeneGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty years after its discovery, replicative senescence remains a rich source of information about cell-cycle regulation and the progression from a normal to a transformed phenotype. Effectors of this growth-arrested state are being discovered at a great pace. This review discusses the latest findings on the players responsible for establishing replicative senescence, as well as the associated telomere shortening.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations92
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series ASame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207