Helminth Regulation of Immunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By reputation, the parasite is a pariah, an unwelcome guest. Infection with helminth parasites evokes stereotypic immune responses in humans and mice that are dominated by T helper (Th)-2 responses; thus, a hypothesis arises that infection with helminths would limit immunopathology in concomitant inflammatory disease. Although infection with some species of helminths can cause devastating disease and affect the course of microbial infections, analyses of rodent models of inflammatory disease reveal that infection with helminth parasites, or treatment with helminth extracts, can limit the severity of autoinflammatory disease, including colitis. Intriguing, but fewer, studies show that adoptive transfer of myeloid immune cells treated with helminth products/extracts in vitro can suppress inflammation. Herein, 3 facets of helminth therapy are reviewed and critiqued: treatment with viable ova or larvae, treatment with crude extracts of the worm or purified molecules, and cellular immunotherapy. The beneficial effect of helminth therapy often converges on the mobilization of IL-10 and regulatory/alternatively activated macrophages, while there are reports on transforming growth factor (TGF)-β, regulatory T cells and dendritic cells, and recent data suggest that helminth-evoked changes in the microbiota should be considered when defining anticolitic mechanisms. We speculate that if the data from animal models translate to humans, noting the heterogeneity therein, then the choice between use of viable helminth ova, helminth extracts/molecules or antigen-pulsed immune cells could be matched to disease management in defined cohorts of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".