Microdissected Tissue vs Tissue Slices: A Comparative Study of Tumor Explant Models Cultured On-Chip and Off-Chip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This data repository contains the raw experimental results used for the article: "Microdissected Tissue vs Tissue Slices—A Comparative Study of Tumor Explant Models Cultured On-Chip and Off-Chip" by Dina Dorrigiv, Kayla Simeone, Laudine Communal, Jennifer Kendall-Dupont, Amélie St-Georges-Robillard, Benjamin Péant, Euridice Carmona, Anne-Marie Mes-Masson, and Thomas Gervais. This dataset contains the experimental results used to generate figures 2 and 3. Cet ensemble de données contient les résultats expérimentaux bruts utilisés pour l'article : "Microdissected Tissue vs Tissue Slices—A Comparative Study of Tumor Explant Models Cultured On-Chip and Off-Chip" par Dina Dorrigiv, Kayla Simeone, Laudine Communal, Jennifer Kendall-Dupont, Amélie St-Georges-Robillard, Benjamin Péant, Euridice Carmona, Anne-Marie Mes-Masson et Thomas Gervais. Cet ensemble de données contient les résultats expérimentaux utilisés pour générer les figures 2 et 3.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.049 |
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".