MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071058150 · doi:10.1002/eji.200425621

Survival versus neglect: redefining thymocyte subsets based on expression of NKG2D ligand(s) and MHC class I

2005· article· en· W2071058150 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Li, Brian Rabinovich, Rose Hurren, David Cosman, Richard G. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Immunology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNKG2DBiologyThymocyteCD8MHC class INegative selectionMajor histocompatibility complexDouble negativeMHC class IIImmunologyCell biologyImmune systemCytotoxic T cellGeneticsGeneIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BALB/c thymocytes can be divided into three distinct subsets according to the expression of a ligand for the NK activation receptor NKG2D (NKG2D-L) and the expression of MHC class I (MHC-I). The first subset (MHC-Imid/NKG2D-Lhigh or "N+") is predominately CD4+CD8+ double positive (DP), comprises approximately 35% of thymocytes in a 6-8-week-old adult and contains uncommitted cells that have neither undergone selection nor are committed to death by neglect. The second subset (MHC-Ilow/NKG2D-Llow or "M-"), also mostly DP cells, comprises approximately 50% of thymocytes and consists of cells committed to death by apoptosis, likely due to neglect. By contrast, the third subset (MHC-Ihigh/NKG2D-Llow or "M+") is largely single positive (SP), represents approximately 15% of thymocytes and mostly contains more mature cells that have undergone successful positive selection. The major advantage of the analysis is that it splits DP cells into two subpopulations, one committed to death by apoptosis and the other subjected to selection. The analysis also suggests that NKG2D-L may play a role in thymocyte development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of ImmunologySame topicImmune Cell Function and InteractionFrench-language works237,207