MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803326208 · doi:10.1007/s10456-018-9613-x

Consensus guidelines for the use and interpretation of angiogenesis assays

2018· review· en· W2803326208 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

VenueAngiogenesis · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesMedical Research CouncilVlaamse regeringAXA Research FundInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentRosetrees TrustNational Institutes of HealthSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAustralian GovernmentAssociation pour la Recherche sur le CancerNational Science FoundationCancer Research UKNational Cancer InstituteBritish Heart FoundationFondation contre le CancerWellcome Trust
KeywordsAngiogenesisBioassayEx vivoComputational biologyIn vivoProcess (computing)BiologyComputer scienceBioinformaticsCancer researchBiotechnologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formation of new blood vessels, or angiogenesis, is a complex process that plays important roles in growth and development, tissue and organ regeneration, as well as numerous pathological conditions. Angiogenesis undergoes multiple discrete steps that can be individually evaluated and quantified by a large number of bioassays. These independent assessments hold advantages but also have limitations. This article describes in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro bioassays that are available for the evaluation of angiogenesis and highlights critical aspects that are relevant for their execution and proper interpretation. As such, this collaborative work is the first edition of consensus guidelines on angiogenesis bioassays to serve for current and future reference.

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)0.001
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 score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.217 · 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