MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889975327 · doi:10.1080/2162402x.2018.1504728

Somatic mutation-associated T follicular helper cell elevation in lung adenocarcinoma

2018· article· en· W2889975327 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin W. Ng, Erin A. Marshall, Katey S.S. Enfield, Spencer D. Martin, Katy Milne, Michelle E. Pewarchuk, N. B. Abraham, Wan L. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueOncoImmunology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaOccupational Cancer Research Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGerminal centerBiologyImmune systemB cellLung cancerAdenocarcinomaImmunologyImmunohistochemistryCancer researchFollicular phaseAffinity maturationAntigenFollicular dendritic cellsCancerT cellPathologyAntibodyMedicineAntigen-presenting cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T follicular helper cells (Tfh) play crucial roles in the development of humoral immunity. In the B cell-rich germinal center of lymphoid organs, they select for high-affinity B cells and aid in their maturation. While Tfh have known roles in B cell malignancies and have prognostic value in some epithelial cancers, their role in lung tumour initiation and development is unknown. Through immune cell deconvolution, we observed significantly increased Tfh in tumours from two independent cohorts of lung adenocarcinomas and found that this upregulation occurs early in tumour development. A subset of tumours were stained for T and B cells using multicolour immunohistochemistry, which revealed the presence of tumour-adjacent tertiary lymphoid organs in 17/20 cases each with an average of 16 Tfh observed in the germinal center. Importantly, Tfh levels were correlated with tumour mutational load and immunogenic cancer testis antigens, suggesting their involvement in mounting an active immune response against tumour neoantigens.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncoImmunologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207