Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".