MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2380546094

[The cytotoxicity of Her-2 pulsed DCIKS against breast cancer cells].

2007· article· en· W2380546094 on OpenAlexaff
Xue Ying, Qiang Zou, Yong Xu, En Zhong Wang, Hong Ying Wang, Yi Hu, Quan Xing Ni

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytotoxicityAntigenBreast cancerMolecular biologyCancer researchCell cultureChemistryViability assayImmunologyCellCancerBiologyMedicineIn vitroInternal medicineBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To study DCIK co-culture system with Her-2 as the pulsing antigen peptide of DC and the cytotoxicity of DCIKs against the breast cancer cells, CIK and DC were first induced and isolated from human peripheral blood. CIK and DC pulsed with antigen Her-2 peptide were then co-cultured to prepare CIK-DC co-culture system (DCIK-P). Using DCIK-P as effect cells and breast tumor cells (MDA-MB-231, SK-BR-3, MCF-7) as target cells,the antigen-specicfic cytotox-icity of DCIK-P was analysed by cell viability and cytotoxicity assay. The killer activity of DCIKs against the MDA-MB-231, SK-BR-3 and MCF-7 is 50.38% +/- 3.25%, 52.19% +/- 3.25% and 47.09% +/- 2.41% respectively. The killer activity of DCIK-Ps against the MDA-MB-231, SK-BR-3 and MCF-7 is 76.30% +/- 1.74% (P < 0.001), 55.70% +/- 3.05% (P = 0.014) and 47.67% +/- 2.40% (P = 0.697) respectively. The killer activity of DCIK-P cells was greatly enhanced against Her-2(+) breast tumor cell strains. The present results can provide tumor immunological data and experimental techniques for the development of breast tumor treatment.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research→French-language works237,207→