MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808793865 · doi:10.3389/frym.2018.00027

Making Neurons from Human Stem Cells

2018· article· en· W2808793865 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher S. Ahuja, Mohammad Rasool Khazaei, Priscilla Chan, Madeleine O’Higgins, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers for Young Minds · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkKrembil FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStem cellMedicineNeuroscienceFeelingCell typeDiseaseSpinal cord injuryPathologyCellSpinal cordBiologyPsychologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons are cells contained within the brain and spinal cord that specialize in communicating information within the body. Neurons are important for many things including moving, breathing, thinking, and feeling pain. If these cells are injured due to an accident, for example, the body can no longer perform some of these important functions. As a result, a person can become disabled in some way. To help patients with injuries to their brains or spinal cords, scientists and doctors may be able to replace damaged neurons by transplanting new cells into the injured person. By using new cells to replace the neurons lost from injury, it is possible that patients will recover some of their lost abilities, such as moving. Scientists think that stem cells are the ideal cell type to transplant into injured patients, because stem cells can multiply and change into the different cell types needed to repair the injury. The stem cells that researchers transplant can be made in the lab from skin cells and blood cells. Skin and blood cells can both be obtained using a needle. Currently, stem cells from patients with brain disease, like Alzheimer’s disease, are used to study these diseases in the laboratory so that cell replacement therapies can be developed.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.009

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers for Young MindsSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207