Bibliographic record
Abstract
I mmunological responses are considered to be either humoral, resulting from cloning of B lymphocytes, or cell mediated, resulting from cloning of T lymphocytes. Autoimmune diseases occur when the cloned products attack host tissue. Inflammation is considered a nonspecific response to injury, characterized by exudation of serum into damaged tissue, and identified by the cardinal signs of rubor, calor, dolor, and tumor. However, these classic mechanisms do not fit pathological observations of Alzheimer disease (AD)-affected brain tissue. Although many of the components prominently associated with peripheral immunological and inflammatory states are present in AD lesions, there are no identifiable B lymphocytes or antibodies, and T cells are sparse. Furthermore, the blood-brain barrier is intact, excluding exudation of exogenous serum proteins. Although "neuroinflammation" is the term commonly used to describe the pathological changes, it fails to define adequately the process that is taking place. The reaction is neither a nonspecific response to injury, as classically implied for inflammatory reactions, nor an autoimmune reaction, despite the directed attack against plaques and extracellular tangles. It is most appropriately defined as an innate immunoreaction. The fact that such a reaction can be mounted by brain, an organ frequently described as being immunologically privileged, suggests that a reevaluation is required of the dimensions of the innate immune system, including how it operates at the tissue level. The innate immune system is primitive, while the adaptive immune system, which is directed by peripheral immune organs, is an invention of vertebrates. Even in vertebrates, however, the innate immune system is the first line of defense. Much more needs to be learned about the operation of the innate immune system in health and disease. Arch Neurol. 2000.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".