MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2429461852 · doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2016.06.006

Cytokine release: A workshop proceedings on the state-of-the-science, current challenges and future directions

2016· review· en· W2429461852 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCytokine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytokineIdentification (biology)MedicineEngineering ethicsMedical physicsData scienceComputer scienceComputational biologyImmunologyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In October 2013, the International Life Sciences Institute - Health and Environmental Sciences Institute Immunotoxicology Technical Committee (ILSI-HESI ITC) held a one-day workshop entitled, "Workshop on Cytokine Release: State-of-the-Science, Current Challenges and Future Directions". The workshop brought together scientists from pharmaceutical, academic, health authority, and contract research organizations to discuss novel approaches and current challenges for the use of in vitro cytokine release assays (CRAs) for the identification of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) potential of novel monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics. Topics presented encompassed a regulatory perspective on cytokine release and assessment, case studies regarding the translatability of preclinical cytokine data to the clinic, and the latest state of the science of CRAs, including comparisons between mAb therapeutics within one platform and across several assay platforms, a novel physiological assay platform, and assay optimization approaches such as determination of FcR expression profiles and use of statistical tests. The data and approaches presented confirmed that multiple CRA platforms are in use for identification of CRS potential and that the choice of a particular CRA platform is highly dependent on the availability of resources for individual laboratories (e.g. positive and negative controls, number of human blood donors), the assay through-put required, and the mechanism-of-action of the therapeutic candidate to be tested. Workshop participants agreed that more data on the predictive performance of CRA platforms is needed, and current efforts to compare in vitro assay results with clinical cytokine assessments were discussed. In summary, many laboratories continue to focus research efforts on the improvement of the translatability of current CRA platforms as well explore novel approaches which may lead to more accurate, and potentially patient-specific, CRS prediction in the future.

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.252 · 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