MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071315999 · doi:10.1159/000343880

Strategies to Query and Display Allergy-Derived Epitope Data from the Immune Epitope Database

2012· review· en· W2071315999 on OpenAlexaff
Kerrie Vaughan, Bjoern Peters, Mark Larché, Anna Pomés, David H. Broide, Alessandro Sette

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Immunology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsEpitopeImmunologyAllergenImmune systemEpitope mappingImmunotherapyComputational biologyImmunopathologyAllergyAutoimmunityBiologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recognition of specific epitopes on allergens by antibodies and T cells is a key element in allergic processes. Analysis of epitope data may be of interest for basic immunopathology or for potential application in diagnostics or immunotherapy. The Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) is a freely available repository of epitope data from infectious disease agents, as well as epitopes defined for allergy, autoimmunity, and transplantation. The IEDB curates the experiments associated with each epitope and thus provides a variety of different ways to search the data. This review aims to demonstrate the utility of the IEDB and its query strategies, including searching by epitope structure (peptidic/nonpeptidic), by assay methodology, by host, by the allergen itself, or by the organism from which the allergen was derived. Links to tools for visualization of 3-D structures, epitope prediction, and analyses of B and T cell reactivity by host response frequency score are also highlighted.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and ImmunologySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207