MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

胰岛的可替代资源--干细胞

2005· article· en· W3028953522 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Zhang, 秦新裕

Bibliographic record

VenueChineae Journal of Organ Transplantation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2000年加拿大的Edmonton组在同种胰岛移植中取得了可喜的成绩,重新点燃了人们对胰岛移植治疗糖尿病的希望.他们应用移植更多的胰岛(10 000IEQ/kg)和不含糖皮质激素的新型免疫抑制剂的方法,使100%(7例)的患者获得了停用胰岛素并维持良好血糖超过1年的效果[1].然而,供者胰腺的短缺和长期应用免疫抑制的副作用限制着这种疗法的应用.应用干细胞(包括胚胎干细胞和成体干细胞)技术诱导胰岛的分化可能是解决这些难题最有前途的一种方法.本文重点综述胚胎干细胞、胰腺成体干细胞和其他类型细胞向胰岛内分泌细胞的转型。

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChineae Journal of Organ Transplantation→Same topicMilitary Technology and Strategies→French-language works237,207→