[Corrigendum] Evaluation of eight reference genes for quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis in human T lymphocytes co‑cultured with mesenchymal stem cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the publication of the above article, the authors contacted the Editorial Office to explain that Fig. 1A and some of the images in Fig. 1B in the paper had already been published in Fig. 1 in another article by the same authors, and they had forgotten to cite the former publication. The paper in which these data appeared was as follows: Li X, Yang Q, Bai J, Xuan Y and Wang Y: Identification of appropriate reference genes for human mesenchymal stem cell analysis by quantitative real‑time PCR. Biotechnol Lett 37: 67‑73, 2015. Fig. 1 of the above paper is reprinted opposite, now with the original source of the figure acknowledged in the form of a reference citation at the end of the Figure caption. The authors apologize to the publishers of Biotechnology Letters for having failed to include a proper acknowledgement for use of the figure in the above publication. [the original article was published in Molecular Medicine Reports 12: 7721-7727, 2015; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2015.4396]
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".