MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2725308582 · doi:10.1016/j.gde.2017.06.005

Direct reprogramming with SOX factors: masters of cell fate

2017· review· en· W2725308582 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Genetics & Development · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick ChildrenOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransdifferentiationReprogrammingBiologyCell fate determinationSomatic cellTranscription factorRegenerative medicineCell biologyCellLineage (genetic)Cellular differentiationStem cellGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decade significant advances have been made toward reprogramming the fate of somatic cells, typically by overexpression of cell lineage-determinant transcription factors. As key regulators of cell fate, the SOX family of transcription factors has emerged as potent drivers of direct somatic cell reprogramming into multiple lineages, in some cases as the sole overexpressed factor. The vast capacity of SOX factors, especially those of the SOXB1, E and F subclasses, to reprogram cell fate is enlightening our understanding of organismal development, cancer and disease, and offers tremendous potential for regenerative medicine and cell-based therapies. Understanding the molecular mechanisms through which SOX factors reprogram cell fate is essential to optimize the development of novel somatic cell transdifferentiation strategies.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.253 · 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