MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977917337 · doi:10.14740/jh540

Distinct Origins of Restricted Progenitors in Postnatal Mouse Blood

2019· article· en· W2977917337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wuyi Kong, XiuJuan Han, Hong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hematology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythrocyte Function and Pathophysiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgenitor cellBiologyProgenitorCell biologyStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most researchers have accepted that unipotent progenitors are the predominant components in bone marrow for tissue regeneration. However, the unipotent progenitors for blood components are still unclear. We previously found that erythrocytes are derived from a distinct unipotent progenitors, or erythrocyte sacs. METHODS: In the current study, we investigated if the other types of unipotent blood cell progenitors existed, what was their original morphologies, and the mechanism of their generation in mouse blood. RESULTS: spore-like small progenitors. Another structure was bud-like, contained inclusion, enlarged from less than 10 µm to more than 30 µm, and also released many spore-like small progenitors. Each type of these spore-like progenitors was approximately 1 µm in diameter and could continue to transdifferentiate in circulation. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide evidence that two types of blood cell restricted progenitors are produced from either filamentary structures or bud-like structures. Both filamentary and bud-like structures were originally released from morphologically distinct, or lineage predetermined tube-shaped structures, or specific niches. Thus, distinct lineages of blood unipotent progenitors are newly produced.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HematologySame topicErythrocyte Function and PathophysiologyFrench-language works237,207