MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220849680 · doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2022.02.011

Deciphering heterogeneous populations of migrating cells based on the computational assessment of their dynamic properties

2022· article· en· W4220849680 on OpenAlexafffund
Aymeric Ferreira, Cedric Bressan, Simon Hardy, Armen Saghatelyan

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroblastBiologyPrincipal component analysisPipeline (software)Neural stem cellLineage (genetic)Cluster (spacecraft)Process (computing)Evolutionary biologyNeurogenesisComputer scienceStem cellNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuronal migration is a highly dynamic process, and multiple cell movement metrics can be extracted from time-lapse imaging datasets. However, these parameters alone are often insufficient to evaluate the heterogeneity of neuroblast populations. We developed an analytical pipeline based on reducing the dimensions of the dataset by principal component analysis (PCA) and determining sub-populations using k-means, supported by the elbow criterion method and validated by a decision tree algorithm. We showed that neuroblasts derived from the same adult neural stem cell (NSC) lineage as well as across different lineages are heterogeneous and can be sub-divided into different clusters based on their dynamic properties. Interestingly, we also observed overlapping clusters for neuroblasts derived from different NSC lineages. We further showed that genetic perturbations or environmental stimuli affect the migratory properties of neuroblasts in a sub-cluster-specific manner. Our data thus provide a framework for assessing the heterogeneity of migrating neuroblasts.

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)0.000
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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell ReportsSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207