MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980215591 · doi:10.1038/icb.2014.112

Understanding the complexity and malleability of T‐cell recognition

2015· review· en· W1980215591 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

VenueImmunology and Cell Biology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian Research Council
KeywordsT-cell receptorMajor histocompatibility complexComputational biologyT cellBiologyCell biologyStructural biologyImmune systemImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T cells are the master regulators of immune system function, continually walking the biological tightrope between adequate host defence and accidental host pathology. Tolerance is maintained or broken through an intricate structural interplay between the T-cell receptor (TCR) and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecule cradling peptide antigens (p). Recent advances in structural biology have shown that the TCR/pMHC interface is surprising precise and extraordinarily malleable. We have seen that seemingly minor changes in the TCR/pMHC interface can abrogate function, as well as substantial conformational changes before and after TCR docking. Our understanding of T-cell biology has also been altered with the knowledge that MHC molecules can bind not only peptides, but also an array of natural and synthetic compounds. Here, we review some examples of the precision and flexibility intrinsic to the TCR/p/MHCI axis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.122 · 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