Preservation of recall immunity in anti‐CD3‐treated recent onset type 1 diabetes patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The safety of any immune modulating agent in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) involves its selectivity on autoimmunity and its preservation of recall and tumour immunity. METHODS: We performed lymphocyte proliferation tests on seven recent onset diabetic patients treated with anti-CD3 (Otelixizumab; ChAglyCD3) and five recent onset diabetic patients treated with placebo, on average 2 years after therapy. RESULTS: Proliferative responses towards common viral, bacterial and yeast antigens upon in vitro stimulation with a range of recall antigens in anti-CD3-treated T1DM patients were highly similar to those in placebo-treated T1DM patients. Similarly, T-cell responses towards autoantigens were equally low between the two groups, several years after diagnosis of T1DM. The proliferative response upon stimulation with the human suppressor protein p53 was invariably high in both anti-CD3- and placebo-treated patients, implying preserved anti-tumour immunity in anti-CD3 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: As long-term focus on side effects is key, we demonstrate in this sub-cohort of recent onset T1DM patients treated with Otelixizumab that recall immunity is preserved in spite of high-dose anti-CD3 treatment, adding to the safety of anti-CD3 treatment as an immune-modulatory agent in the treatment of T1DM.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".