Evaluating Cell Identity from Transcription Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) and direct lineage programming offer promising autologous and patient-specific sources of cells for personalized drug-testing and cell-based therapy. Before these engineered cells can be widely used, it is important to evaluate how well the engineered cell types resemble their intended target cell types. We have developed a method to generate CellScore, a cell identity score that can be used to evaluate the success of an engineered cell type in relation to both its initial and desired target cell type, which are used as references. Of 20 cell transitions tested, the most successful transitions were the iPS cells (CellScore > 0.9), while other transitions (e.g. induced hepatocytes or motor neurons) indicated incomplete transitions (CellScore < 0.5). In principle, the method can be applied to any engineered cell undergoing a cell transition, where transcription profiles are available for the reference cell types and the engineered cell type. Highlights A curated standard dataset of transcription profiles from normal cell types was created. CellScore evaluates the cell identity of engineered cell types, using the curated dataset. CellScore considers the initial and desired target cell type. CellScore identifies the most successfully engineered clones for further functional testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
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".