MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279369651 · doi:10.14785/lpsn-2015-0001

Dendritic cell defects in primary immunodeficiency disorders

2015· article· en· W2279369651 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Siobhan O. Burns

Bibliographic record

VenueLymphoSign Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmune systemPrimary immunodeficiencyAntigen presentationImmunologyDendritic cellPriming (agriculture)Acquired immune systemAntigenImmunodeficiencyAntigen-presenting cellImmunophenotypingBiologyT cellNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dendritic cells (DC) are professional antigen-presenting cells that play a key role in linking the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system. In vitro, DC perform critical functions such as antigen uptake and processing, priming of naïve T cells and production of cytokines to regulate other immune cells. In vivo experimental systems support a central role for DC in inducing protective immune responses but the effect of DC deficiency in existing whole animal models is smaller than would be predicted. Studies of human primary immunodeficiency disorders (PID) have significantly advanced our understanding of the development and function of other immune cells and provide some important information about DC. Although only a small number of rare monogenic PID that cause DC deficiency have been described to date, impaired DC function forms part of the immunophenotype of several PID and is likely to contribute to clinical presentation. This review focuses on what is known so far about the role of DC in PID and what implications this has for basic DC biology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLymphoSign JournalSame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207