MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009077330 · doi:10.1101/2020.03.02.972893

Defining totipotency using criteria of increasing stringency

2020· preprint· en· W3009077330 on OpenAlexafffund
Eszter Pósfai, John P. Schell, Adrian Janiszewski, Isidora Rovic, Alexander Murray, Brian Bradshaw, Tine Pardon, Mouna El Bakkali, Irene Talón, Natalie De Geest, Pankaj Kumar, San Kit To, Sophie Petropoulos, Andrea Jurisicova, Vincent Pasque, Fredrik Lanner, Janet Rossant

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteSinai Health SystemPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick Children
FundersUppsala Multidisciplinary Center for Advanced Computational ScienceKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéVlaamse regeringScience for Life LaboratoryVetenskapsrådetFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenter for Innovative MedicineOntario GenomicsKU LeuvenGenome Canada
KeywordsTotipotentBiologyInduced pluripotent stem cellEmbryonic stem cellConceptusCell biologyStem cellCell typeComputational biologyBiotechnologyCellGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Totipotency is the ability of a single cell to give rise to all the differentiated cells that build the conceptus, yet how to capture this property in vitro remains incompletely understood. Defining totipotency relies upon a variety of assays of variable stringency. Here we describe criteria to define totipotency. We illustrate how distinct criteria of increasing stringency can be used to judge totipotency by evaluating candidate totipotent cell types in the mouse, including early blastomeres and expanded or extended pluripotent stem cells. Our data challenge the notion that expanded or extended pluripotent states harbor increased totipotent potential relative to conventional embryonic stem cells under in vivo conditions.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207