MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999842307 · doi:10.29173/hsi200

Ghosts of Gene Therapies Past- Lessons Learned From Jesse Gelsinger

2019· article· en· W2999842307 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kevin Gorsky

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Inquiry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiotechnology and Related Fields
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to the complete sequencing of the human genome, the development of induced pluripotent stem cells and the fanfare surrounding Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palendromic Sequences (CRISPR) genetic editing systems, the biomedical sciences had an even bigger preeminent heavyweight: gene therapy. The development of techniques to sequence, clone, and directionally insert DNA in vitro collided at the inevitable junction of this revolutionary new science. However, bringing gene therapy applications to clinical trials revealed dangers and pitfalls that still hinder the field today. The tragic death of Jesse Gelsinger continues to highlight the multitude of hazards that have been linked to gene therapy for over 20 years, as well as the ethical considerations regarding the conflicts of interest present in clinical science.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.025
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science InquirySame topicBiotechnology and Related FieldsFrench-language works237,207