MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037319473 · doi:10.1111/imr.12129

Human cell‐based artificial antigen‐presenting cells for cancer immunotherapy

2013· review· en· W2037319473 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus O. Butler, Naoto Hirano

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunological Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsAdoptive cell transferCell therapyImmunotherapyT cellImmunologyCancerAntigenCancer immunotherapyCancer researchChimeric antigen receptorAdoptive immunotherapyCellBiologyMedicineImmune systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adoptive T-cell therapy, where anti-tumor T cells are first prepared in vitro, is attractive since it facilitates the delivery of essential signals to selected subsets of anti-tumor T cells without unfavorable immunoregulatory issues that exist in tumor-bearing hosts. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that anti-tumor adoptive T-cell therapy, i.e. infusion of tumor-specific T cells, can induce clinically relevant and sustained responses in patients with advanced cancer. The goal of adoptive cell therapy is to establish anti-tumor immunologic memory, which can result in life-long rejection of tumor cells in patients. To achieve this goal, during the process of in vitro expansion, T-cell grafts used in adoptive T-cell therapy must be appropriately educated and equipped with the capacity to accomplish multiple, essential tasks. Adoptively transferred T cells must be endowed, prior to infusion, with the ability to efficiently engraft, expand, persist, and traffic to tumor in vivo. As a strategy to consistently generate T-cell grafts with these capabilities, artificial antigen-presenting cells have been developed to deliver the proper signals necessary to T cells to enable optimal adoptive cell therapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations126
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunological ReviewsSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207