Towards Early Prediction of Human iPSC Reprogramming Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents advancements in automated early-stage prediction of the success of reprogramming human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) as a potential source for regenerative cell therapies. The minuscule success rate of iPSC-reprogramming of around 0.01% to 0.1% makes it labor-intensive, time-consuming, and exorbitantly expensive to generate a stable iPSC line since that requires culturing of millions of cells and intense biological scrutiny of multiple clones to identify a single optimal clone. The ability to reliably predict which cells are likely to establish as an optimal iPSC line at an early stage of pluripotency would therefore be ground-breaking in rendering this a practical and cost-effective approach to personalized medicine. Temporal information about changes in cellular appearance over time is crucial for predicting its future growth outcomes. In order to generate this data, we first performed continuous time-lapse imaging of iPSCs in culture using an ultra-high resolution microscope. We then annotated the locations and identities of cells in late-stage images where reliable manual identification is possible. Next, we propagated these labels backwards in time using a semi-automated tracking system to obtain labels for early stages of growth. Finally, we used this data to train deep neural networks to perform automatic cell segmentation and classification. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/abhineet123/ipsc_prediction
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
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".