MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007529230 · doi:10.1159/000225994

Circulating Lymphocytes Bearing DR Antigens in Human Melanoma

2009· article· en· W2007529230 on OpenAlexaff
M Jerry, M. E. Shea

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research Council
KeywordsAntigenImmunologyImmune systemAntibodyLymphocyteNull cellImmunofluorescenceB cellBiologyMedicineCell cultureGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

B cell DR antigens were studied with lymphocyte markers in the peripheral blood of 62 staged melanoma patients and 37 normal individuals matched for age and sex. 47 patients had early disease (31 in stage I; 16 in stage II) and 15 had advanced disease (stage III). Phagocytic cells were removed prior to testing. Specific rabbit antisera and monoclonal antibodies to purified human B cell DR and Fc molecules were used for detection of membrane immunofluorescence. Mild declines of total lymphocytes and of E-rosetting T cells were observed in comparing early to late disease. The drop of Ig(+) B cells was more striking. DR(+) cells, however, showed no change in percentage and a lesser drop in absolute numbers, suggesting an increase with advancing disease of DR(+), Ig(-) null cells, which may represent immature B cell precursors. Fc(+) cells increased markedly in 14 patients who received levamisole, with little effect on the markers. Elevations of OKT4/OKT8 ratios were seen with a relative reduction in OKT8 cells, especially in late disease. These changes in lymphocyte subpopulations may reflect imbalance between the B and T arms from deranged immune regulation caused by chronic antigenic stimulation from progressively growing tumor. In addition to T cell suppression there is B cell hyperactivity with appearance of immature forms peripherally (shift to left).

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 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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207