Схожість та відмінність популяції гемопоетичних стовбурових/ прогеніторних клітин із різних тканин людини
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. We have determined the similarities and the differences of HSPCs populations from the full-term placental tissue (FTPT) compared to HSPCs from the cord blood (CB) and the fetal liver (FL). Methods. HSPCs from FTPT have been obtained by enzymatic method. The immunophenotyping have been performed on BD FACSAria (USA). MethoCult (Canada) has been used for differentiation assays. Results. The content of HSPCs (CD34+CD45lowSSClow) among CD34+CD45low population from FTPT and FL was the same but significantly lower comparing to CB. FTPT contains significantly higher number of lineage committed HSPCs in compare to CB but lower than to FL. HSPCs from FTPT and CB have similar potential to multilineage differentiation in vitro. Conclusions. Observed similarities and differences of HSPCs from studied tissues and other data evidence about the process of placental hematopoiesis and permit to suggest that FTPT is a valued source of HSCs for medicine. Keywords: hematopoietic stem/progenitors cells, placenta, cord blood, fetal liver.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".