MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137922050 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.178.9.5505

Characterizing T Cell Movement within Lymph Nodes in the Absence of Antigen

2007· article· en· W2137922050 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Catherine A. A. Beauchemin, Narendra M. Dixit, Alan S. Perelson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Research ResourcesMitacsU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsRandom walkReticular cellReticular connective tissueCellRepresentation (politics)Intersection (aeronautics)BiologyChemotaxisComputer sciencePhysicsCell biologyBiological systemAnatomyMathematicsImmunologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent application of two-photon microscopy to the visualization of T cell movement has presented trajectories of individual T cells within lymphoid organs both in the presence and in the absence of Ag-loaded dendritic cells. Remarkably, even though T cells largely move along conduits of the fibroblastic reticular cell network, they appear to execute random walks in lymphoid organs rather than chemotaxis. In this study, we analyze experimental trajectories of T cells using computer simulations of idealized random walks. Comparisons of simulations with experimental data provide estimates of key parameters that characterize T cell motion in vivo. For example, we find that the distance moved before turning is about twice the distance between intersections in the fibroblastic reticular cell network, suggesting that at an intersection a T cell will turn onto a new fiber approximately 50% of the time. Although the calibrated model appears to offer an accurate representation of T cell movement, it has also uncovered inconsistencies across different experimental data sets.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations82
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207