Helminths as therapeutic agents for inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade major advances have been made in our understanding of the mechanisms and mediators of inflammation that hold the promise of the development of new therapies for inflammatory disease. While much is to be gleaned from the application of new technologies, assessment of the age-old host-parasite relationship may also provide insights on how to counter pathological inflammatory events. In the case of inflammatory bowel disease [particularly Crohn's disease, which is associated with T helper 1 (Th1) events] it is proposed that infection with parasitic helminths would be beneficial: the paradigm being that of immune deviation, where Th2 cytokines mobilized in response to the helminth will prevent or antagonize the disease-promoting Th1 events in the gut. The situation is unlikely to be this simple. Here we review and critique the data in support of helminth therapy for inflammatory bowel disease, drawing attention to the gaps in knowledge and presenting a view on how the field may be advanced. While the concept of helminth therapy may be superficially unappealing, this review may convince the reader of the value of more extensive analyses of the impact of helminth infection on enteric inflammation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".