MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804669221 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0214

Generation of defined neural populations from pluripotent stem cells

2018· review· en· W2804669221 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah F. McComish, Maeve A. Caldwell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersParkinson's UK
KeywordsInduced pluripotent stem cellNeuroscienceEmbryonic stem cellBiologyNeural stem cellHuman Induced Pluripotent Stem CellsSomatic cellStem cellCell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective and efficient generation of human neural stem cells and subsequently functional neural populations from pluripotent stem cells has facilitated advancements in the study of human development and disease modelling. This review will discuss the established protocols for the generation of defined neural populations including regionalized neurons and astrocytes, oligodendrocytes and microglia. Early protocols were established in embryonic stem cells (ESC) but the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) in 2006 provided a new platform for modelling human disorders of the central nervous system (CNS). The ability to produce patient- and disease-specific iPSC lines has created a new age of disease modelling. Human iPSC may be derived from adult somatic cells and subsequently patterned into numerous distinct cell types. The ability to derive defined and regionalized neural populations from iPSC provides a powerful in vitro model of CNS disorders. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Designer human tissue: coming to a lab near you’.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.230
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207