MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007353818 · doi:10.1182/blood.v99.4.1267

Functional in vivo characterization of human monoclonal anti-D in NOD-scid mice

2002· article· en· W2007353818 on OpenAlexaff
Renée Bazin, Éric Aubin, Lucie Boyer, Isabelle St‐Amour, C. Roberge, Réal Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHéma-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonoclonal antibodyIn vivoIsotypePolyclonal antibodiesMonoclonalNodMolecular biologyAntibodyIn vitroImmunologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prophylaxis of the hemolytic disease of the newborn requires significant amounts of plasma-derived polyclonal human anti-D. Because of procurement problems, there is a growing interest in replacing plasma-derived anti-D by in vitro-produced human monoclonal anti-D. Hundreds of monoclonal anti-D have been prepared, but the selection of the most potent for in vivo use is difficult because it cannot be predicted by in vitro characterization. This study evaluated the possibility of using nonobese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficient (NOD-scid) mice for the in vivo evaluation of human monoclonal anti-D. Human red blood cells (RBCs) were found to circulate normally in the blood of NOD-scid mice previously injected with a physiologic amount of human immunoglobulin G (10 mg). The addition of a small amount of anti-D (1 to 5 microg) resulted in the clearance of Rh D(+) RBCs within 4 hours. The comparative testing of 8 monoclonal anti-Ds showed a wide range of potency (15% to 87%) relative to plasma-derived polyclonal anti-D. There was no strong correlation between the in vivo potency index and the immunoglobulin G isotype, affinity, or fine specificity of the antibodies. These results show the usefulness of NOD-scid mice for the initial in vivo screening of human monoclonal anti-D before testing the most active antibodies in clinical trials done in human volunteers.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207