Report of the International Stem Cell Banking Initiative Workshop Activity: Current Hurdles and Progress in Seed-Stock Banking of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article summarizes the recent activity of the International Stem Cell Banking Initiative (ISCBI) held at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in California (June 26, 2016) and the Korean National Institutes for Health in Korea (October 19-20, 2016). Through the workshops, ISCBI is endeavoring to support a new paradigm for human medicine using pluripotent stem cells (hPSC) for cell therapies. Priority considerations for ISCBI include ensuring the safety and efficacy of a final cell therapy product and quality assured source materials, such as stem cells and primary donor cells. To these ends, ISCBI aims to promote global harmonization on quality and safety control of stem cells for research and the development of starting materials for cell therapies, with regular workshops involving hPSC banking centers, biologists, and regulatory bodies. Here, we provide a brief overview of two such recent activities, with summaries of key issues raised. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2017;6:1956-1962.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".