Immunological Tolerance. Part I of a Report of a Workshop on Foundational Concepts of Immune Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report, the first of two, arose from a one-week workshop directed at discussing concepts of immune regulation, and focuses on immunological tolerance. We first outline the major ideas we thought sufficiently plausible to provide a context for discussing more controversial issues around tolerance. We then report on our discussion of different experiments that appear paradoxical in terms of the different, contemporary models of CD4 T cell inactivation/activation, and how such observations might be resolved in terms of insights provided by these contemporary models. These discussions bear on the plausibility of the Pathogen-Associated Molecular Pattern (PAMP), Danger and Two Step, Two Signal Models for the activation of naïve CD4 T cells. Some of the observations considered appear paradoxical in terms of the PAMP and Danger Models, but not with the Two Step, Two Signal Model. For example, genetically immunodeficient mice have been given foreign, sterile ectopic grafts, and the immune system allowed to develop once these grafts were well-healed in, and so in the absence of PAMPs or danger. The grafts were rejected, unexpected on the PAMP or Danger Models. We also discussed considerations and observations bearing on the widely held idea that antigen must crosslink the membrane Ig receptors of a B cell to initiate the generation of signal 1, or the alternative possibility that monovalent binding by antigen can do so. We favored the latter possibility, and discussed a particular model, "the Elbow Model," for how this might be achieved.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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.
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".