MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079451660 · doi:10.1016/j.coi.2010.08.006

Antigen-specific immunotherapy of autoimmune and allergic diseases

2010· review· en· W2079451660 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Sabatos-Peyton, Johan Verhagen, David C. Wraith

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Immunology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersMultiple Sclerosis SocietyWellcome Trust
KeywordsEpitopeImmunologyAntigenImmunotherapyMedicineDiseaseAutoimmune diseaseT cellImmune systemAntibodyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly a century has passed since the first report describing antigen-specific immunotherapy (antigen-SIT) was published. Research into the use of antigen-SIT in the treatment of both allergic and autoimmune disease has increased dramatically since, although its mechanism of action is only slowly being unravelled. It is clear though, from recent studies, that success of antigen-SIT depends on the induction of regulatory T (T reg) cell subsets that recognise potentially disease-inducing epitopes. The major challenge remaining for the widespread use of antigen-SIT is to safely administer high doses of immunodominant and potentially pathogenic epitopes in a manner that induces T cell tolerance rather than activation. This review illustrates that intelligent design of treatment agents and strategies can lead to the development of safe and effective antigen-SIT.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations137
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in ImmunologySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207