MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016420042 · doi:10.1517/14712598.8.5.583

Immunological reconstitution after hematopoietic cell transplantation – its relation to the contents of the graft

2008· review· en· W2016420042 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Storek

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsImmunologyImmunityImmune systemTransplantationHematopoietic cellHaematopoiesisAcquired immune systemMedicineInnate immune systemCD34Hematopoietic stem cell transplantationBiologyStem cellInternal medicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: After hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), there is a prolonged period of immune deficiency. OBJECTIVE: To review the recovery of immunity after HCT, including how it is influenced by the cellular contents of the graft, and therapeutic implications. METHODS: Literature review using Medline. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Whereas innate immunity (e.g., epithelial barriers, phagocytes, natural killer cells) typically recovers within weeks post-transplant, the recovery of adaptive immunity takes longer, months for B cells and years for T cells. The recovery is influenced by the graft contents. For example the number of CD34 cells given with the graft affects the tempo of neutrophil recovery, and the number of CD4 T cells given with the graft affects CD4 T cell counts post-transplant. Improved understanding of the relationship between graft contents and immune reconstitution could lead to graft engineering improving transplant outcomes.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations78
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207