MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173357459 · doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.10.011

Creating Patient-Specific Neural Cells for the In Vitro Study of Brain Disorders

2015· article· en· W2173357459 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kristen Brennand, M. Carol Marchetto, Nissim Benvenisty, Oliver Brüstle, Allison D. Ebert, Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte, Ajamete Kaykas, Madeline A. Lancaster, Frederick J. Livesey, Michael J. McConnell, Ronald D.G. McKay, Eric M. Morrow, Alysson R. Muotri, David M. Panchision, Lee L. Rubin, Akira Sawa, Frank Soldner, Hongjun Song, Lorenz Studer, Sally Temple, Flora M. Vaccarino, Jun Wu, Pierre Vanderhaeghen, Fred H. Gage, Rudolf Jaenisch

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingEuropean Research CouncilSeventh Framework ProgrammeLeona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable TrustMedical Research CouncilTakeda Pharmaceuticals InternationalNational Institutes of HealthWalloon excellence in life sciences and biotechnologyFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSHarvard Stem Cell InstituteBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungWellcome TrustNew York Stem Cell FoundationBrain and Behavior Research FoundationJPB FoundationU.S. Department of DefenseSimons FoundationStanley FoundationAzrieli FoundationWellcomeNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeG. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable FoundationSpinal Muscular Atrophy FoundationMaryland Stem Cell Research FundCalifornia Institute for Regenerative Medicine
KeywordsOptimismBiologyBrain diseaseField (mathematics)Data scienceNeuroscienceDiseaseComputer sciencePsychologyPathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a group, we met to discuss the current challenges for creating meaningful patient-specific in vitro models to study brain disorders. Although the convergence of findings between laboratories and patient cohorts provided us confidence and optimism that hiPSC-based platforms will inform future drug discovery efforts, a number of critical technical challenges remain. This opinion piece outlines our collective views on the current state of hiPSC-based disease modeling and discusses what we see to be the critical objectives that must be addressed collectively as a field.

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)0.006
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations77
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell ReportsSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207