MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023806255

STEM CELLS AND THEIR ROLE IN MODERN MEDICINE

2018· article· en· W3023806255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ivelina Dobreva, Pavlina Teneva, Tsvetana Bojkova

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge International Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStem cellEmbryonic stem cellBiologyAdult stem cellCell biologyStem cell theory of agingClinical uses of mesenchymal stem cellsCell typeAmniotic epithelial cellsMulticellular organismStem cell transplantation for articular cartilage repairRegeneration (biology)Cellular differentiationRegenerative medicineImmunologyCellHaematopoiesisGeneticsStem cell factor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stem cells are cells found in most multicellular organisms. They are characterized by the ability to self-regenerate and differentiate into different classes of specialized cell types.It is believed that the beginning of stem cell research was in the 1960s after Canadian scientists Ernest McCloulock and James Til studied basic undifferentiated cells that retained the ability to differentiate in other cell types. This ability allows them to be used to treat a number of diseases and restore organs with impaired function.In mammals, stem cells are two main types: embryonic stem cells found in blastocysts and adult stem cells found in mature tissues. In the developing embryo, stem cells can differentiate into all of the specialized embryonic tissues. In adult organs, stem cells and cells of the origin act as a body regeneration system replacing specialized cells but also maintain normal reorganization of regenerated organs such as blood, skin or intestinal tissues.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge International JournalSame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207