MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hematopoietic Colony-Forming Cell Assays

2007· article· en· W8963448 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

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythrocyte Function and Pathophysiology
Canadian institutionsStemcell Technologies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaematopoiesisStem cellBiologyProgenitor cellCell biologyEmbryonic stem cellBone marrowMyeloidIn vitroAdult stem cellImmunologyCellEndothelial stem cellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hematopoiesis is the process by which stem cells divide and differentiate to produce the multiple types of mature cells found in blood. The process begins in early embryonic development and continues throughout adult life, primarily in the bone marrow. Various in vivo and in vitro assays have been developed to detect and assess stem cells and early multi-potential progenitors. While highly informative about primitive hematopoietic cells these assays are long and labour intensive. Alternatively, colony-forming cell (CFC) assays may be used to quantify more lineage-restricted progenitors in a simple in vitro assay. When cultured in a semi-solid medium containing the appropriate cytokines, CFCs are able to divide and differentiate into a colony of more mature cells that can be detected by light microscopy. This allows for the quantification of erythroid, myeloid, lymphoid, megakaryocytic, and multi-potential cell lineages from various cell sources. This chapter outlines the materials and methods used for the culture and assessment of CFC from humans, mice, and other species.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.368 · 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