MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283802696 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.943622

Telomere Length Regulation

2022· review· en· W4283802696 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter M. Lansdorp

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Research Institute
KeywordsTelomereComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsComputer scienceCancer researchMedicineDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

repeats at the ends of chromosomes is highly variable between individual chromosomes, between different cells and between species. Progressive loss of telomere repeats limits the proliferation of pre-malignant human cells but also contributes to aging by inducing apoptosis and senescence in normal cells. Despite enormous progress in understanding distinct pathways that result in loss and gain of telomeric DNA in different cell types, many questions remain. Further studies are needed to delineate the role of damage to telomeric DNA, replication errors, chromatin structure, liquid-liquid phase transition, telomeric transcripts (TERRA) and secondary DNA structures such as guanine quadruplex structures, R-loops and T-loops in inducing gains and losses of telomere repeats in different cell types. Limitations of current telomere length measurements techniques and differences in telomere biology between species and different cell types complicate generalizations about the role of telomeres in aging and cancer. Here some of the factors regulating the telomere length in embryonic and adult cells in mammals are discussed from a mechanistic and evolutionary perspective.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207