MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998025057 · doi:10.1159/000090001

Toll-Like Receptors: Sentinels of Host Defence against Bacterial Infection

2005· review· en· W1998025057 on OpenAlexaff
Markus Schnare, Martin Röllinghoff, Salman T. Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Immunology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInnate immune systemPattern recognition receptorBiologyImmunologyReceptorImmune systemAcquired immune systemTLR2Host (biology)ImmunityTLR4Toll-like receptorTollMicrobiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innate immunity provides a first line of host defence against infection through microbial recognition and killing while simultaneously activating a definitive adaptive immune response. Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are principal mediators of rapid microbial recognition and function mainly by detection of structural patterns that do not exist in the host. TLR2 and TLR4 were the first members of this innate immune receptor family to be strongly implicated in antibacterial host defence. Following the initial description of the mammalian TLR family, susceptibility to infection with numerous human microbial pathogens has been intensively studied using mice with engineered deletions of each of these molecules. While it has become quite clear that TLR activation is necessary for optimal host defence, a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms by which this family of pattern recognition receptors engages protective immunity, particularly the adaptive response, is still evolving.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.007

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations62
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and ImmunologySame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207