MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380048552 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.107053

Predicting the number of lifetime divisions for hematopoietic stem cells from telomere length measurements

2023· article· en· W4380048552 on OpenAlexafffund
Cole Boyle, Peter M. Lansdorp, Leah Edelstein‐Keshet

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Research InstituteCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsTelomereHaematopoiesisStem cellBiologyCell divisionHierarchyTracking (education)Computational biologyGeneticsEvolutionary biologyDNACell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

blood cells over a human lifetime? It has been predicted that relatively few, slowly dividing HSCs occupy the top of the hematopoietic hierarchy. However, tracking HSCs directly is extremely challenging due to their rarity. Here, we utilize previously published data documenting the loss of telomeric DNA repeats in granulocytes, to draw inferences about HSC division rates, the timing of major changes in those rates, as well as lifetime division totals. Our method uses segmented regression to identify the best candidate representations of the telomere length data. Our method predicts that, on average, an HSC divides 56 times over an 85-year lifespan (with lower and upper bounds of 36 and 120, respectively), with half of these divisions during the first 24 years of life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207