The Potentials and Pitfalls of a Human Cervical Organoid Model Including Langerhans Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional cell culturing to capture a life-like experimental environment has become a versatile tool for basic and clinical research. Mucosal and skin tissues can be grown as "organoids" in a petri dish and serve a wide variety of research questions. Here, we report our experience with human cervical organoids which could also include an immune component, e.g., Langerhans cells. We employ commercially available human cervical keratinocytes and fibroblasts as well as a myeloid cell line matured and purified into langerin-positive Langerhans cells. These are then seeded on a layer of keratinocytes with underlying dermal equivalent. Using about 10-fold more than the reported number in healthy cervical tissue (1-3%), we obtain differentiated cervical epithelium after 14 days with ~1% being Langerhans cells. We provide a detailed protocol for interested researchers to apply the described "aseptic" organoid model for all sorts of investigations-with or without Langerhans cells.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".