The acute and sensitization effects of tumor necrosis factor-α: implications for immunotherapy as well as psychiatric and neurological conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to their role as signaling molecules of the immune system, cytokines may participate in central neurotransmission. Variations of the central and/or peripheral levels of the proinflammatory cytokines, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-β (IL-1β), impact on neuroendocrine processes as well as central neurotransmitter activity. To a considerable extent, these effects are reminiscent of those elicited by psychogenic stressors. The current review describes recent findings consistent with a role for these cytokines in the neurochemical and behavioral manifestations of clinical depression, as well as the cellular death associated with cerebral ischemia. Moreover, the increasing use of cytokines in the immunotherapeutic treatment of various autoimmune diseases (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis) and cancers prompted us to consider the potential role of central processes in subserving the mood-related side-effects elicited by these treatments. Finally, a single administration of TNF-α has been shown to elicit a time-dependent sensitization effect, wherein the behavioral and neurochemical responses elicited by later cytokine treatment are greatly enhanced. Thus, particular attention was devoted to the possibility that elevated levels of TNF-α, through either exogenous (e.g. immunotherapy) or endogenous (e.g. brain damage or stressors) means may sensitize neurotransmitter or second messenger pathways important for the pathology. Given the time-dependent nature of cytokine sensitization effects, the schedule of cytokine administration during immunotherapy, or the timing of cytokine up-regulation in response to traumatic or stressful events may favor the development of sensitized central processes, which may influence clinical outcome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".