MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772306649 · doi:10.1039/c7nr08360b

Technical challenges of working with extracellular vesicles

2017· review· en· W2772306649 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

VenueNanoscale · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicExtracellular vesicles in disease
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMinistero della SaluteCiência sem FronteirasFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorMedical Research CouncilBritish CouncilConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNewton Fund
KeywordsExtracellular vesiclesVesicleNanotechnologyExtracellularBiophysicsMaterials scienceChemistryCell biologyBiologyBiochemistryMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) are gaining interest as central players in liquid biopsies, with potential applications in diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutic guidance in most pathological conditions. These nanosized particles transmit signals determined by their protein, lipid, nucleic acid and sugar content, and the unique molecular pattern of EVs dictates the type of signal to be transmitted to recipient cells. However, their small sizes and the limited quantities that can usually be obtained from patient-derived samples pose a number of challenges to their isolation, study and characterization. These challenges and some possible options to overcome them are discussed in this review.

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 score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.234 · 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