MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909439838 · doi:10.5415/apallergy.2019.9.e4

Human ex vivo and in vitro disease models to study food allergy

2019· review· en· W2909439838 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa Hung, Helena Obernolte, Katherina Sewald, Thomas Eiwegger

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Allergy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersInnovationsfondenHospital for Sick ChildrenHSBC Bank USA
KeywordsMedicineFood allergyEx vivoAllergyClinical trialIntensive care medicineBiotechnologyIn vivoImmunologyPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food allergy is a growing global public health concern. As treatment strategies are currently limited to allergen avoidance and emergency interventions, there is an increasing demand for appropriate models of food allergy for the development of new therapeutics. Many models of food allergy rely heavily on the use of animals, and while useful, many are unable to accurately reflect the human system. In order to bridge the gap between in vivo animal models and clinical trials with human patients, human models of food allergy are of great importance. This review will summarize the commonly used human ex vivo and in vitro models of food allergy and highlight their advantages and limitations regarding how accurately they represent the human in vivo system. We will cover biopsy-based systems, precision cut organ slices, and coculture systems as well as organoids and organ-on-a-chip. The availability of appropriate experimental models will allow us to move forward in the field of food allergy research, to search for effective treatment options and to further explore the cause and progression of this disorder.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific AllergySame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207