MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795915374 · doi:10.3390/ijms19051447

The Initiation of Th2 Immunity Towards Food Allergens

2018· review· en· W2795915374 on OpenAlexafffund
Yosef Ellenbogen, Rodrigo Jiménez‐Saiz, Paul Spill, Derek K. Chu, Susan Waserman, Manel Jordana

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersFood Allergy Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Immune systemImmunologyBiologyInnate immune systemAcquired immune systemIdentification (biology)SensitizationImmune recognitionImmunityNeuroscienceAllergyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contrast with Th1 immune responses against pathogenic viruses and bacteria, the incipient events that generate Th2 responses remain less understood. One difficulty in the identification of universal operating principles stems from the diversity of entities against which cellular and molecular Th2 responses are produced. Such responses are launched against harmful macroscopic parasites and noxious substances, such as venoms, but also against largely innocuous allergens. This suggests that the established understanding about sense and recognition applied to Th1 responses may not be translatable to Th2 responses. This review will discuss processes and signals known to occur in Th2 responses, particularly in the context of food allergy. We propose that perturbations of homeostasis at barrier sites induced by external or internal subverters, which can activate or lower the threshold activation of the immune system, are the major requirement for allergic sensitization. Innate signals produced in the tissue under these conditions equip dendritic cells with a program that forms an adaptive Th2 response.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations63
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207