Autoreactive T Cells in Human Smokers is Predictive of Clinical Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-sectional studies have suggested a role for activation of adaptive immunity in smokers with emphysema, but the clinical application of these findings has not been explored. Here we examined the utility of detecting autoreactive T cells as a screening tool for emphysema in an at-risk population of smokers. We followed 156 former and current (ever)-smokers for 2 years to assess whether peripheral blood CD4 T cell cytokine responses to lung elastin fragments (EFs) could discriminate between those with and without emphysema, and to evaluate the relevance of autoreactive T cells to predict changes during follow-up in lung physiological parameters. Volunteers underwent baseline complete phenotypic assessment with pulmonary function tests, quantitative chest CT, yearly 6-min walk distance (6MWD) testing, and annual measurement of CD4 T cell cytokine responses to EFs. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict emphysema for interferon gamma (IFN-γ), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) responses to EFs were 0.81 (95% CI of 0.74-0.88) and 0.79 (95% CI of 0.72-0.86) respectively. We developed a dual cytokine enzyme-linked immunocell spot assay, the γ-6 Spot, using CD4 T cell IFN-γ and IL-6 responses and found that it discriminated emphysema with 90% sensitivity. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of autoreactive T cells was predictive of a decrease in 6MWD over 2 years (decline in 6MWD, -19 m per fold change in IFN-γ; P = 0.026, and -26 m per fold change in IL-6; P = 0.003). In support of the human association studies, we cloned CD4 T cells with characteristic T helper (Th)1 and Th17 responses to EFs in the peripheral blood of ever-smokers with emphysema, confirming antigenicity of lung elastin in this population. These findings collectively suggest that the EF-specific autoreactive CD4 T cell assay, γ-6 Spot, could provide a non-invasive diagnostic tool with potential application to large-scale screening to discriminate emphysema in ever-smokers, and predict early relevant physiological outcomes in those at risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".