Co-inhibitory molecules: Controlling the effectors or controlling the controllers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly forty years ago the concept was proposed that lymphocytes are negatively regulated by what are now called co-inhibitory signals. Nevertheless, it is only the more recent identification of numerous co-inhibitors and their critical functions that has brought co-inhibition to the forefront of immunologic research. Although co-inhibitory signals have been considered to directly regulate conventional T cells, more recent data has indicated a convergence between co-inhibitory signals and the other major negative control mechanism in the periphery that is mediated by regulatory T cells. Furthermore, it is now clear that lymphocytes are not the sole domain of co-inhibitory signals, as cells of the innate immune system, themselves controllers of immunity, are regulated by co-inhibitors they express. Thus, in order to better understand negative regulation in the periphery and apply this knowledge to the treatment of disease, a major focus for the future should be the definition of the conditions where co-inhibition controls effector cells intrinsically versus extrinsically (via regulatory or innate cells).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".