MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886645328 · doi:10.1002/cpmo.47

Muscle Stem Cell Immunostaining

2018· article· en· W2886645328 on OpenAlexafffund
Shuaiyu Wang, Bao Zhang, Gregory C. Addicks, Hui Zhang, Keir J. Menzies, Hongbo Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Mouse Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Institute for Regenerative MedicineNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSun Yat-sen UniversityMedical University of South Carolina
KeywordsSkeletal muscleImmunostainingStem cellRegenerative medicineMuscular dystrophymdx mouseRegeneration (biology)MyocyteDuchenne muscular dystrophyBiologyProgenitor cellCell biologyPathologyMedicineDystrophinImmunologyAnatomyImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muscle stem cells (MuSCs) are essential for maintaining muscle homeostasis by providing progenitor cells for muscle regeneration after injury and in muscular diseases. MuSC properties dynamically change, reflecting physiology or pathological status. For instance, MuSCs are activated after muscle injury, but become exhausted in late stages of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) disease and senescent during aging. Therefore, characterization of MuSCs, including proliferation, activation, senescence, and apoptosis, etc., is very important in applying MuSC knowledge to regenerative medicine, such as in the treatment of DMD and to improve muscle function in aging. Here, we describe a detailed method for characterizing MuSCs in situ using immunostaining techniques in the mouse. This method can also be easily adapted to analyze other skeletal muscle properties. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.015

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in Mouse BiologySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207