Assessing Tumorigenicity in Stem Cell-Derived Therapeutic Products: A Critical Step in Safeguarding Regenerative Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stem cells hold promise in regenerative medicine due to their ability to proliferate and differentiate into various cell types. However, their self-renewal and multipotency also raise concerns about their tumorigenicity during and post-therapy. Indeed, multiple studies have reported the presence of stem cell-derived tumors in animal models and clinical administrations. Therefore, the assessment of tumorigenicity is crucial in evaluating the safety of stem cell-derived therapeutic products. Ideally, the assessment needs to be performed rapidly, sensitively, cost-effectively, and scalable. This article reviews various approaches for assessing tumorigenicity, including animal models, soft agar culture, PCR, flow cytometry, and microfluidics. Each method has its advantages and limitations. The selection of the assay depends on the specific needs of the study and the stage of development of the stem cell-derived therapeutic product. Combining multiple assays may provide a more comprehensive evaluation of tumorigenicity. Future developments should focus on the optimization and standardization of microfluidics-based methods, as well as the integration of multiple assays into a single platform for efficient and comprehensive evaluation of tumorigenicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".