MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389489847 · doi:10.1002/jev2.12385

MIBlood‐EV: Minimal information to enhance the quality and reproducibility of blood extracellular vesicle research

2023· review· en· W4389489847 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Extracellular Vesicles · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicExtracellular vesicles in disease
Canadian institutionsTrinity CollegeUniversité LavalToronto General HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracellular vesiclesExtracellular vesicleReproducibilityVesicleQuality (philosophy)MicrovesiclesChemistryComputational biologyComputer scienceCell biologyBiologyChromatographyBiochemistryPhysicsGenemicroRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blood is the most commonly used body fluid for extracellular vesicle (EV) research. The composition of a blood sample and its derivatives (i.e., plasma and serum) are not only donor-dependent but also influenced by collection and preparation protocols. Since there are hundreds of pre-analytical protocols and over forty variables, the development of standard operating procedures for EV research is very challenging. To improve the reproducibility of blood EV research, the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) Blood EV Task Force proposes standardized reporting of (i) the applied blood collection and preparation protocol and (ii) the quality of the prepared plasma and serum samples. Gathering detailed information will provide insight into the performance of the protocols and more effectively identify potential confounders in the prepared plasma and serum samples. To collect this information, the ISEV Blood EV Task Force created the Minimal Information for Blood EV research (MIBlood-EV), a tool to record and report information about pre-analytical protocols used for plasma and serum preparation as well as assays used to assess the quality of these preparations. This tool does not require modifications of established local pre-analytical protocols and can be easily implemented to enhance existing databases thereby enabling evidence-based optimization of pre-analytical protocols through meta-analysis. Taken together, insight into the quality of prepared plasma and serum samples will (i) improve the quality of biobanks for EV research, (ii) guide the exchange of plasma and serum samples between biobanks and laboratories, (iii) facilitate inter-laboratory comparative EV studies, and (iv) improve the peer review process.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.324 · 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