MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209141514 · doi:10.1038/s41592-021-01291-4

MISpheroID: a knowledgebase and transparency tool for minimum information in spheroid identity

2021· article· en· W3209141514 on OpenAlexafffund
Arne Peirsman, Eva Blondeel, Tasdiq Ahmed, Jasper Anckaert, Dominique Audenaert, Tom Boterberg, Krisztina Buzás, Neil O. Carragher, Gastone Castellani, Flávia Castro, Virginie Dangles‐Marie, John C. Dawson, Pascal De Tullio, Elly De Vlieghere, Sándor Dedeyne, Herman Depypere, Ákos Diósdi, Ruslan I. Dmitriev, Helmut Dolznig, Suzanne Fischer, Christian Gespach, Vera Goossens, Jyrki Heino, An Hendrix, Péter Horváth, Leoni A. Kunz‐Schughart, Sebastiaan Maes, Christophe Mangodt, Pieter Mestdagh, Soňa Michlíková, María José Oliveira, Francesco Pampaloni, Filippo Piccinini, Cláudio Pinheiro, Jennifer J. Rahn, Stephen M. Robbins, Elina Siljamäki, Patrick Steigemann, Gwen Sys, Shuichi Takayama, Anna Tesei, Joeri Tulkens, Michiel Van Waeyenberge, Jo Vandesompele, Glenn Wagemans, Claudia Weindorfer, Nurten Yigit, Nina Zablowsky, Michele Zanoni, Phillip Blondeel, Olivier De Wever

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Methods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on AgingKom op tegen KankerCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchStand Up To CancerSyöpäjärjestötVlaamse regeringUniversiteit GentBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungZonMwBrain Tumour CharityNational Institutes of HealthCancer Research UK
KeywordsSpheroidTransparency (behavior)CrowdsourcingComputer scienceInterrogationComputational biologyBiological systemBiochemical engineeringBiologyEngineeringCell cultureGeographyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spheroids are three-dimensional cellular models with widespread basic and translational application across academia and industry. However, methodological transparency and guidelines for spheroid research have not yet been established. The MISpheroID Consortium developed a crowdsourcing knowledgebase that assembles the experimental parameters of 3,058 published spheroid-related experiments. Interrogation of this knowledgebase identified heterogeneity in the methodological setup of spheroids. Empirical evaluation and interlaboratory validation of selected variations in spheroid methodology revealed diverse impacts on spheroid metrics. To facilitate interpretation, stimulate transparency and increase awareness, the Consortium defines the MISpheroID string, a minimum set of experimental parameters required to report spheroid research. Thus, MISpheroID combines a valuable resource and a tool for three-dimensional cellular models to mine experimental parameters and to improve reproducibility.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations83
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature MethodsSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207