MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TREATMENT WITH ANTI-CD154 ANTIBODY AND DONOR-SPECIFIC TRANSFUSION PREVENTS ACUTE REJECTION OF MYOBLAST TRANSPLANTATION1

2002· article· en· W1976686248 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey Camirand, Nicolas Caron, Nicole A. Turgeon, Aldo A. Rossini, Jacques P. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD154TransplantationMedicineDystrophinImmunosuppressionMyocyteDuchenne muscular dystrophyImmunologyAntibodyCytotoxic T cellCD40Internal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Achieving immunological tolerance to transplanted myoblasts would reduce the adverse effects associated with the sustained immunosuppression required for this experimental therapeutic approach in Duchenne muscular dystrophic patients. METHODS: Mdx mice were transplanted with fully allogeneic BALB/c myoblasts in the tibialis anterior muscles. Seven days before transplantation (-7), host mice received 107 total donor spleen cells i.v. (donor-specific transfusion, DST) with 500 microg of anti-CD154 mAb i.p. on days -7, -4, 0, +4. RESULTS: Results showed a high level of dystrophin expression in 83, 60, and 20% of the mice 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively, after transplantation of myoblasts. No antibodies against the donor cells were produced up to 3 months after transplantation. However, abundant activated cytotoxic cells were present in muscles still expressing high percentage of dystrophin positive fibers. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the DST + anti-CD154 mAb treatments effectively prolonged myoblast survival, but this treatment could not develop tolerance to complete allogeneic myoblast transplantation.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207