MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977915040 · doi:10.1159/000234878

Comparison of the Specific IgM and IgG Antibody Response in Humans Induced by Antigen (Tetanus Toxoid) or a Polyclonal Activator (EBV) in vitro

2009· article· en· W1977915040 on OpenAlexaff
Danuta Kozbor, John Roder

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research Council
KeywordsToxoidAntibodyImmunologyAntigenPolyclonal antibodiesCytotoxic T cellIn vitroBiologyAntiserumVirologyMolecular biologyImmunization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Culture conditions were established for the reproducible induction of specific antibody responses in vitro using peripheral blood lymphocytes from tetanus toxoid (TT) immunized donors. Maximum anti-TT antibody responses (250-350 ng/ml) were detected on day 9 of culture, with optimum quantities of antigen (0.1-1.0 micrograms/ml TT) or Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). The antigen-driven antibody response unlike the EBV-induced polyclonal response was both T-cell and monocyte-dependent. TT stimulated mainly the IgM class of anti-TT antibody whereas EBV stimulated both IgM and IgG. A combination of TT and EBV caused a partially additive IgM response but suppressed the IgG class of anti-TT antibody. Transfer of cells from 9-day EBV-stimulated cultures to fresh cultures suppressed the anti-TT antibody response, possibly due to elevated levels of OKT8+ suppressor/cytotoxic cells found in culture after EBV infection. These results provide a reliable system for studying B-cell regulation in man.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied ImmunologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207