MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The rate of apoptosis in post mitotic neutrophil precursors of normal and neutropenic humans

2003· article· en· W2139004304 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Mackey, Andrew A.G. Aprikyan, David C. Dale

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Proliferation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBlood disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMitosisApoptosisCompartment (ship)NeutropeniaAndrologyGranulocyteImmunologyBiologyMedicineChemistryCell biologyInternal medicineChemotherapyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data on the fraction of post-mitotic neutrophil precursors (CD15+ cells) displaying positive markers for apoptosis in 12 normal humans, and a simple mathematical model, we have estimated the apoptotic rate to be about 0.28/day in this compartment. This implies that the influx of myelocytes into the post-mitotic compartment exceeds twice the granulocyte turnover rate (GTR), and that about 55% of the cells entering this compartment die before being released into the blood. The normal half life of apoptotic post-mitotic neutrophil precursors is calculated to be 10.4 h. Comparable calculations for patients indicate apoptosis rates in the post-mitotic compartment of about 17 times normal for one myelokathexis patient and rates of about 13 times normal for the one cyclical neutropenic patient and two severe congenital neutropenic patients. The estimated half life for apoptotic post-mitotic neutrophil precursors in the myelokathexis patient was about 0.4 h, 1.4 h in the cyclical neutropenia patient, and about 0.6 h in the severe congenital neutropenic patients.

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ProliferationSame topicBlood disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207