Selling Stem Cell ‘Treatments’ as Research: Prospective Customer Perspectives from Crowdfunding Campaigns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To better understand how prospective customers interpret claims of businesses marketing unproven stem cell products that they are engaging in research activities. MATERIALS & METHODS: The authors examined 408 crowdfunding campaigns for unproven stem cell interventions for references to research activities. RESULTS: The authors identified three overarching themes: research as a signifier of scientific credibility; the experimental nature of stem cells as a rationale for noncoverage by insurers; and contributing to the advancement of science by engaging in research. CONCLUSION: The NIH, US FDA and others should be concerned about being co-opted to misrepresent the nature of these businesses' activities. Efforts are also needed to better inform those considering purchasing unproven stem cell interventions about their relationship to legitimate research.
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 | 0.049 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".