MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766125827 · doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2017-204761

T cell clonality assessment: past, present and future

2017· review· en· W2766125827 on OpenAlexafffund
Etienne Mahé, Trevor J. Pugh, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPfizer CanadaTerry Fox Research InstituteTerry Fox FoundationCanada Foundation for InnovationOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPfizerPrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationUniversity of CalgaryMultiple Myeloma Research Foundation
KeywordsComputational biologyBiologyBioinformaticsCellT cellFunction (biology)ImmunologyGeneticsImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T cell clonality testing has important clinical and research value, providing a specific and reproducible assessment of clonal diversity in T cell proliferations. Here we review the conceptual foundations of T cell clonality assays, including T cell ontogeny and T cell receptor structure and function; we also provide an introduction to T cell receptor genomics and the concept of the T cell clonotype. This is followed by a review of historical and current methods by which T cell clonality may be assayed, including current assay limitations. Some of these assay limitations have been overcome by employing next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based technologies that are becoming a mainstay of modern molecular pathology. In this vein, we provide an introduction to NGS technologies, including a review of the preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical technologies relevant to T cell clonality NGS assays.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations89
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207