MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169647951 · doi:10.1586/1744666x.3.1.73

B-cell subsets: cellular interactions and relevance in multiple sclerosis

2006· article· en· W2169647951 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia J. Calder, Martin Duddy, Amit Bar‐Or

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Immunology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisImmunologyAntibodyMedicineAutoantibodyImmune systemContext (archaeology)B cellAutoimmunityNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been longstanding interest in how B-cell responses may contribute to the pathology of neurological diseases. Traditionally, the premise has been that any such contribution relates to the potential of B cells to produce autopathogenic antibodies. Targeting autoantibodies continues to be an important therapeutic approach, particularly in disorders where the role of antibodies is relatively well established, such as in certain inflammatory disorders of peripheral nerves or the neuromuscular junction. In other conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, the role of circulating antibodies targeting the CNS has been less clear, although pathologic studies continue to implicate CNS-reactive antibodies, as well as B cells within the CNS compartment. Recently, new insights into fundamental properties of B cells have suggested that these cells may contribute in an antibody-independent fashion, both to normal immune responses, and in the context of immune mediated diseases. Here, we will consider the potential roles of antibody-dependent as well as antibody-independent B-cell involvement in multiple sclerosis. The topic is of particular interest at a time that B-cell-directed therapies are being evaluated for this and other autoimmune diseases.

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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical ImmunologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207