B cells, IgE and mechanisms of type I hypersensitivity in eosinophilic oesophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pathogenesis of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EO) is unknown. EO has recently been defined as significantly elevated intraepithelial eosinophils (⩾15 per high-power field) throughout the oesophageal mucosa, coupled with clinical and endoscopic signs of oesophagitis that cannot be attributed to gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) or other causes.1 2 This inflammatory condition is more likely to occur in atopic individuals and is limited to the oesophagus where Th2 cytokines and mast cells are also abnormally elevated.1 Removal of specific protein or all proteins from the diet may resolve the inflammatory response in some patients.3 Animal models point to antigen exposure in lung or nasal mucosa leading to local inflammation and oesophagitis.4 EO may indeed be the manifestation of an oesophageal hypersensitivity response to food or environmental antigens, but since a systemic response is not present, local mucosal immune events may be important in this disease. Patients with EO have increased numbers of cells required for local immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody production. Lucendo et al used sensitive immunohistochemical evaluation to quantify B cells (CD20+);5 however, very few intraepithelial B cells were detected in oesophagitis (EO and GORD), and the numbers did not reach statistical significance. Mucosal mast cells are also increased in the oesophagus in EO, and these cells stain positively for IgE.5 6 7 …
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".