Systems Immunology: Learning the Rules of the Immune System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the many cell types and molecular components of the human immune system, along with vast variations across individuals, how should we go about developing causal and predictive explanations of immunity? A central strategy in human studies is to leverage natural variation to find relationships among variables, including DNA variants, epigenetic states, immune phenotypes, clinical descriptors, and others. Here, we focus on how natural variation is used to find patterns, infer principles, and develop predictive models for two areas: (a) immune cell activation-how single-cell profiling boosts our ability to discover immune cell types and states-and (b) antigen presentation and recognition-how models can be generated to predict presentation of antigens on MHC molecules and their detection by T cell receptors. These are two examples of a shift in how we find the drivers and targets of immunity, especially in the human system in the context of health and 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it