MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126968785 · doi:10.1586/ers.10.81

Pulmonary mucosal dendritic cells in T-cell activation: implications for TB therapy

2011· article· en· W2126968785 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah McCormick, Christopher R. Shaler, Zhou Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineImmunologyPriming (agriculture)Immune systemMycobacterium tuberculosisDendritic cellT cellAntigenAntigen-presenting cellLymph nodeTuberculosisAntimycobacterialBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the causative agent of pulmonary TB, causes chronic intracellular infection of lung-resident antigen-presenting cells, including macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs). Life-long bacterial control requires robust T-cell immune responses. Lung DCs are critical for initiating and co-ordinating adaptive immune responses against TB. The recent description of previously uncharacterized DC subsets has prompted the re-examination of lung DCs and their role in priming antimycobacterial T-cell responses. While there is some data on these new DCs in their naive state, very little is known about how these DCs respond to pulmonary mycobacterial infection. In this article, we attempt to identify the major antigen-presenting cell subsets that may be critical to lymph node homing, T-cell priming and controlling mycobacterial infection. We further examine the areas of DC heterogeneity that may relate to differential susceptibility between mouse strains. Furthermore, we discuss how DCs may be manipulated and exploited as a cell-based prophylactic TB vaccine and the prospect of using this strategy for post-M. tuberculosis exposure settings.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207