MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244178247 · doi:10.1089/hum.2020.29116.oxg

Live and Let Live: The Remarkable Story of HEK293 Cells

2020· editorial· en· W4244178247 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Gene Therapy · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsnobodyHEK 293 cellsArt historyPsychoanalysisMedicineArtCell culturePsychologyBiologyGeneticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Live and Let Live: The Remarkable Story of HEK293 CellsHow a single cell line lit the spark that turned gene therapies from theoretical possibility to therapeutic reality All scientists dream of making an impact.Few can look back and identify a single experiment that led to the creation of an entire scientific field.When Frank Graham set out to transform human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells with adenoviral DNA in early 1973, he was trying to understand why some adenoviruses caused cancer and some didn't.He wasn't trying to set in motion the creation of a new field of medical research, with a multibillion-dollar market value.But that's exactly what he did.Frank had left Canada three years earlier to begin his postdoctoral research with Professor Alex van der Eb at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.Until then, he hadn't been particularly interested in adenoviruses, but finding a postdoctoral supervisor working in that area changed his mind.''I decided to investigate the correlation between low GC content in adenoviral DNA and oncogenicity,'' Graham recalls.''At that time, nobody knew much about how or why cancers started, so using oncogenic viruses to transform normal cells into cancerous cells in culture seemed a good in vitro model for tumour induction.Perhaps it sounds naı ¨ve now, but given the little we understood back then, seeking to understand what made

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Gene TherapySame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207