MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793459189 · doi:10.1002/stem.2783

Concise Review: Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Models of Retinitis Pigmentosa

2018· review· en· W2793459189 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ana Artero‐Castro, Dunja Lukovic, Pavla Jendelová, Slaven Erceg

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIInstitute of Infection and ImmunityGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsBiologyRetinitis pigmentosaInduced pluripotent stem cellStem cellCell biologyGeneticsEmbryonic stem cellNeuroscienceRetinaGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hereditary retinal dystrophies, specifically retinitis pigmentosa (RP) are clinically and genetically heterogeneous diseases affecting primarily retinal cells and retinal pigment epithelial cells with blindness as a final outcome. Understanding the pathogenicity behind these diseases has been largely precluded by the unavailability of affected tissue from patients, large genetic heterogeneity and animal models that do not faithfully represent some human diseases. A landmark discovery of human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) permitted the derivation of patient-specific cells. These cells have unlimited self-renewing capacity and the ability to differentiate into RP-affected cell types, allowing the studies of disease mechanism, drug discovery, and cell replacement therapies, both as individual cell types and organoid cultures. Together with precise genome editing, the patient specific hiPSC technology offers novel strategies for targeting the pathogenic mutations and design therapies toward retinal dystrophies. This study summarizes current hiPSC-based RP models and highlights key achievements and challenges of these cellular models, as well as questions that still remain unanswered. Stem Cells 2018;36:474-481.

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 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 score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem CellsSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207