MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031788227 · doi:10.1002/jcla.10026

Specificity of autoantibodies to SS‐A/Ro on a transfected and overexpressed human 60 kDa Ro autoantigen substrate

2002· article· en· W2031788227 on OpenAlexaff
Marvin J. Fritzler, Cheryl Hanson, Joan Miller, Theophany Eystathioy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntigenIIfMolecular biologyAntibodyAutoantibodyImmunoassayRecombinant DNAImmunofluorescenceChemistryImmunoprecipitationTransfectionImmunodiffusionBiologyImmunologyGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to analyze apparently discrepant results that arose during the use of an indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) assay using transfected HEp-2 cells to detect anti-SS-A/Ro autoantibodies in human sera. Fourteen sera that had SS-A/Ro antibodies as detected on this commercial substrate, but did not have antibodies to SS-A/Ro as determined by double immunodiffusion (ID) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), were studied by immunoprecipitation (IP) of radiolabeled cell extracts and full-length recombinant SS-A/Ro. A multi-antigen strip immunoblotting (IB) assay containing both the 52- and 60-kDa antigens was included in the analysis. We confirmed that 12 of 14 of the sera under study had antibodies to SS-A/Ro protein antigens as determined by at least one other immunoassay. One serum had antibodies to hyRNA but no detectable reactivity with the 52- or 60-kDa antigens. One serum remained negative in all assays for SS-A/Ro autoantibodies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Laboratory AnalysisSame topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchFrench-language works237,207