MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324064591 · doi:10.1177/147323000603400105

Evaluation of Epoetin Alpha (rHuEPO) and Darbepoetin Alpha (DARB) on Human Burst-colony Formation (BFU-E) in Culture

2006· article· en· W2324064591 on OpenAlexaff
NM Jamal, Wojciech Krzyżański, Wing K. Cheung, Wallis C. Y. Lau, HA Messner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Medical Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDarbepoetin alfaErythropoietinMedicineEpoetin alfaAlpha (finance)ErythropoiesisIn vitroInternal medicinePharmacologyEndocrinologyImmunologyAnemiaBiologyBiochemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The erythropoietic effect of recombinant human erythropoietin, epoetin alpha (rHuEPO), in promoting the growth of erythroid burst-forming units (BFU-E) was compared with darbepoetin alpha (DARB), a rHuEPO analogue obtained by site-directed mutagenesis. Human bone marrow cells derived from healthy donors were cultured with different concentrations of rHuEPO or DARB for 12 - 21 days and BFU-E were counted using an inverted microscope. The EC50 of rHuEPO was about 10-fold lower than DARB and the size of the colonies was significantly larger in rHuEPO-containing cultures using comparable concentrations. The maximum number of colonies obtained in some rHuEPO-containing cultures was also higher than for DARB. The number of colonies in DARB-containing cultures was increased, in part, by the addition of low concentrations of rHuEPO, but not by DARB, even at high concentrations. We conclude that DARB is not as effective as rHuEPO in supporting the in vitro growth of human BFU-E.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Medical ResearchSame topicErythropoietin and Anemia TreatmentFrench-language works237,207