MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W34538937 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-812-9:001

Measurement of Apoptosis by DNA Fragmentation

2004· article· en· W34538937 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell death mechanisms and regulation
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDNA fragmentationFragmentation (computing)EndonucleaseAgarose gel electrophoresisApoptosisProgrammed cell deathDNAChromatinAgaroseApoptotic DNA fragmentationMolecular biologyCell biologyBiologyCellGel electrophoresis of nucleic acidsGel electrophoresisChemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical apoptotic cell death can be defined by certain morphological and biochemical characteristics that distinguish it from other forms of cell death. One such feature, which is a hallmark of apoptosis, is DNA fragmentation. In dying cells, DNA is cleaved by an endonuclease that fragments the chromatin into nucleosomal units, which are multiples of about 180-bp oligomers and appear as a DNA ladder when run on an agarose gel. Here, we present commonly used methods such as conventional agarose gel electrophoresis to analyze fragmented nuclei in cells. The various methods used are dependent on the extent of fragmentation or the amount of fragmented nuclei in a sample. Determining whether a cell exhibits DNA fragmentation can provide information about the type of cell death occurring and the pathways activated in the dying cell.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.216 · 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