MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548516294 · doi:10.1002/eji.201646649

Disease etiology and diagnosis by TCR repertoire analysis goes viral

2016· letter· en· W2548516294 on OpenAlexaff
Meriem Attaf, Andrew K. Sewell

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Immunology · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsT-cell receptorRepertoireBiologyImmunologyContext (archaeology)CD8DiseaseEvolutionary biologyT cellImmune systemPathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of T‐cell receptor (TCR) repertoire diversity is highlighted in murine models of immunodeficiency and in many human pathologies. However, the true extent of TCR diversity and how this diversity varies in health and disease is poorly understood. In a previous issue of the European Journal of Immunology, Lossius et al. [Eur. J. Immunol. 2014. 44: 3439–3452] dissected the composition of the TCR repertoire in the context of multiple sclerosis (MS) using high‐throughput sequencing of TCR‐β chains in cerebrospinal fluid samples and blood. The authors demonstrated that the TCR repertoire of the CSF was largely distinct from the blood and enriched in EBV‐reactive CD8+ T cells in MS patients. Studies of this kind have long been hindered by technical limitations and remain scarce in the literature. However, TCR sequencing methodologies are progressing apace and will undoubtedly shed light on the genetic basis of T‐cell responses and the ontogeny of T‐cell‐mediated diseases, such as MS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of ImmunologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207