MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566486719 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2016.12.011

Microarray data and pathway analyses for primary human activated hepatic stellate cells compared to HepG2 human hepatoma cells

2016· article· en· W2566486719 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra M. Hetherington, Cynthia G. Sawyez, Nica M. Borradaile

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAgilent Technologies
KeywordsHepatic stellate cellHepatocellular carcinomaHepatic fibrosisBiologyCirrhosisGene expressionMicroarrayGene expression profilingCancer researchGeneFibrosisPathologyMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As nonalcoholic fatty liver disease progresses to end-stage diseases, including fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, fibrotic activated hepatic stellate cells and cancerous epithelial cells can become abundant, changing the cellular composition of this organ. Despite potentially residing within the same diseased tissue, direct comparisons of global gene expression between activated hepatic stellate cells and hepatocellular carcinoma cells are lacking. Here we provide data collected using Affymetrix GeneChip microarrays to identify differential gene expression in cultured primary human activated hepatic stellate cells compared to HepG2 human hepatoma cells. The dataset includes many genes involved in intermediary metabolism which were investigated in greater depth in our associated article (A.M. Hetherington, C.G. Sawyez, E. Zilberman, A.M. Stoianov, D.L. Robson, J.M. Hughes-Large, et al., 2016) [1]. Pathway analyses of known protein coding genes down-regulated or up-regulated by greater than 2.0-fold are also provided.

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 score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

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 science0.0010.002
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.336
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 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207