Investigation of the cutaneous response to recall antigen in humans<i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we provide a detailed description of an experimental method for investigating the induction and resolution of recall immune response to antigen in humans in vivo. This involves the injection of tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) into the skin, followed by inducing suction blisters at the site of injection, from which leucocytes and cytokines that are involved in the response can be isolated and characterized. Using this technique we found that although the majority of CD4(+) T cells in the skin that are present early in the response express cutaneous lymphocyte antigen (CLA), the expression of this marker is reduced significantly in later phases. This may enable these cells to leave the skin during immune resolution. Furthermore, interleukin (IL)-2 production can be detected both in CD4(+) T cells and also in the blister fluid at the peak of the response at day 7, indicating that mediators found in the blister fluid are representative of the cytokine microenvironment in vivo. Finally, we found that older humans have defective ability to respond to cutaneous PPD challenge, but this does not reflect a global immune deficit as they have similar numbers of circulating functional PPD-specific CD4(+) T cells as young subjects. The use of the blister technology enables further characterization of the skin specific defect in older humans and also general mechanisms that govern immune regulation in vivo.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".