MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156036056 · doi:10.5779/hypothesis.v1i1.11

Stem Cells - Hope or Hype for Reproductive and Regenerative Medicine?

2008· article· en· W2156036056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zubin Master, Amandine Truong

Bibliographic record

VenueHypothesis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegenerative medicineStem cellReproductive medicineEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsMedicineBiologyEngineeringCell biologyPhilosophyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Generally, conditioned media from cells generated to overexpress an antibody are run through a bead column – similar to an immunoprecipitation – and then the bound antibody is eluted off the column. However, how a company generates this antibody can vary (ie, using insect or mammalian cells) as well as the methods used to purify the antibody. This can make a big difference in what additional proteins may be present in the antibody as it is shipped. 2. These experiments in Figure 1 were performed with antibodies, not commercially available, that were generated by 4 different companies. All were raised to detect Receptor X and selected for in vivo use because they inhibit the binding of Receptor X’s ligand. Their use in vivo has been to test whether inhibiting Receptor X can inhibit tumor growth. In general, these antibodies are not different from those commercially available and used in Westerns – yet it is possible that that these antibodies may not be as pure as those you buy commercially.

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)0.004
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.012

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypothesisSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207