MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078721098 · doi:10.1002/jnr.1078

Vaccination with a CDR2 BV6S2/6S5 peptide in adjuvant induces peptide‐specific T‐cell responses in patients with multiple sclerosis

2001· article· en· W2078721098 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth E. Morgan, Christopher Nardo, Jocelyn P. Diveley, Joel Kunin, Richard M. Bartholomew, Ronald B. Moss, Dennis J. Carlo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsResponse Biomedical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunogenicityPeptide vaccineAdjuvantVaccinationImmunologyMedicineT-cell receptorPeptideAntigenT cellMultiple sclerosisImmunizationClinical trialImmune systemInternal medicineEpitopeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earlier studies from several groups including ours have documented that patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have over-expression of activated T-cells from specific TCR V beta families, including BV6S2/S5 (Kotzin et al. [1991] Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88:9161--9165; Gold et al. [1997] J. Neuroimmunol. 76:29--38). It has also been established in the rat EAE model that peptide vaccines to the over-expressed V beta 8.2 TCR can prevent MBP induced disease (Vandenbark et al. [1989] Nature 341:541--544). In the current clinical study, 10 patients were vaccinated with 300 microg of BV6S2/6S5 peptide emulsified in incomplete Freund's adjuvant (IFA) and monitored for safety and immunogenicity in a 48-week multicenter, open-label trial. The peptide vaccine was well tolerated and no serious adverse events were observed. Vaccinations induced cell-mediated immunity to the immunizing peptide in eight of 10 patients as demonstrated by lymphocyte proliferation assay (LPA) and delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) skin test responses. In summary, these results demonstrate that immunization with TCR BV6S2/6S5 peptide vaccine in MS patients is safe and immunogenic, and supports a larger double-blind placebo controlled trial to determine the clinical efficacy of this approach.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207