MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090931333 · doi:10.1002/eji.200324563

Increased islet antigen presentation leads to type‐1 diabetes in mice with autoimmune susceptibility

2004· article· en· W2090931333 on OpenAlexaff
Valeria Judkowski, Michelle Krakowski, Enrique Rodrı́guez, Lorraine Mocnick, Pere Santamaría, Nora Sarvetnick

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Immunology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMichael Smith Health Research BC
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsBiologyImmunologyAdoptive cell transferIsletNOD miceAutoimmunityAntigen presentationImmune systemAntigenT cellAutoimmune diseaseCD8EndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is frequently used in preclinical and clinical protocols to modulate autoimmune responses, bone marrow transplants, and recovery from immune ablative therapies. The immunological outcome of such therapies is not fully understood. We tested the hypothesis that GM-CSF would enhance the maturation of antigen-presenting cells, facilitating presentation of beta-cell autoantigens to autoreactive T cells. We found that islet expression of GM-CSF greatly enhanced disease in male mice. Islet-derived APC but not splenic APC showed markedly enhanced capacity to stimulate in vitro proliferative responses of islet-antigen-specific autoreactive T cells. In vivo transfer of CD8(+) and CD4(+) T cells demonstrate that autoreactive T cells undergo extensive division in pancreatic lymph nodes of GM-CSF-transgenic mice compared with wild-type NOD male mice. Together, the results presented here demonstrate that expression of GM-CSF in the pancreas can enhance autoimmunity in disease-susceptible mice.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of ImmunologySame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207