Bags versus flasks: a comparison of cell culture systems for the production of dendritic cell–based immunotherapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, cell-based therapies targeting the immune system have emerged as promising strategies for cancer treatment. This review summarizes manufacturing challenges related to production of antigen presenting cells as a patient-tailored cancer therapy. Understanding cell-material interactions is essential because in vitro cell culture manipulations to obtain mature antigen-producing cells can significantly alter their in vivo performance. Traditional antigen-producing cell culture protocols often rely on cell adhesion to surface-treated hydrophilic polystyrene flasks. More recent commercial and investigational cancer immunotherapy products were manufactured using suspension cell culture in closed hydrophobic fluoropolymer bags. The shift to closed cell culture systems can decrease risks of contamination by individual operators, as well as facilitate scale-up and automation. Selecting closed cell culture bags over traditional open culture systems entails different handling procedures and processing controls, which can affect product quality. Changes in culture vessels also entail changes in vessel materials and geometry, which may alter the cell microenvironment and resulting cell fate decisions. Strategically designed culture systems will pave the way for the generation of more sophisticated and highly potent cell-based cancer vaccines. As an increasing number of cell-based therapies enter the clinic, the selection of appropriate cell culture vessels and materials becomes a critical consideration that can impact the therapeutic efficacy of the product, and hence clinical outcomes and patient quality of life.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".