MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2170309365 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2002.1137049

Scalable generation of cardiomyocytes from mouse embryonic stem cells

2003· article· en· W2170309365 on OpenAlexaff
Céline L. Bauwens, Yin Ting, Qiang Liu, Peter W. Zandstra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryoid bodyCell biologyEmbryonic stem cellTransfectionBiologyFlow cytometryMolecular biologyTransplantationBioprocessCell fusionMyosinCellCell cultureGeneAdult stem cellInternal medicineGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. Cardiomyocyte transplantation could offer a new approach to replace scarred, nonfunctional myocardium in a diseased heart. The present work describes a bioprocess for the generation of cardiomyocytes from differentiating mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells. ES cells transfected with a fusion gene consisting of the alpha-cardiac myosin heavy chain (MHC) promoter driving the aminoglycoside phosphotransferase (neomycin resistance) gene were inoculated into bioreactors, differentiated for 11 days, and selected using G418 for 8 days. The resulting embryoid bodies (EBs) were enzymatically dissociated, and cellular expression of sarcomeric MHC was assessed by flow cytometry using a monoclonal antibody. The fraction of MHC positive cells increased from <1% at culture initiation to /spl sim/80% by day 19, which represented a yield of cardiomyocyte per input ES cell of /spl sim/30%. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of large-scale production of viable, ES cell-derived cardiomyocytes for tissue engineering and/or implantation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPluripotent Stem Cells Research→French-language works237,207→