MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762965851 · doi:10.1089/scd.2017.0090

Optimizing Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Expansion in Stirred-Suspension Culture

2017· article· en· W2762965851 on OpenAlexaff
Guoliang Meng, Shiying Liu, Anna Poon, Derrick E. Rancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells and Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced pluripotent stem cellBiologyBioreactorEmbryonic stem cellHuman Induced Pluripotent Stem CellsRegenerative medicineGerm layerSuspension cultureSeedingChemically defined mediumSuspension (topology)Cell cultureCell biologyBiotechnologyStem cellBotanyIn vitroGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) hold great hopes for application in regenerative medicine due to their inherent capacity to self-renew and differentiate into cells from the three embryonic germ layers. For clinical applications, a large quantity of hiPSCs produced in standardized and scalable culture processes is required. Several groups, including ours, have developed methodologies for scaled-up hiPSC production in stirred bioreactors in chemically defined medium. In this study, we optimized the critical steps and factors that affect hiPSC expansion and yield in stirred-suspension cultures, including inoculation conditions, seeding density, aggregate size, agitation rate, and cell passaging method. After multiple passages in stirred-suspension bioreactors, hiPSCs remained pluripotent, karyotypically normal, and capable of differentiating into all three germ layers.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations41
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cells and DevelopmentSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207