Establishing reference ranges for lymphocyte proliferation responses to phytohemagglutinin in patients with T cell dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The evaluation of lymphocyte proliferation responses is a critical component of the clinical work up for patients with suspected immunodeficiencies. Those with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) have consistently low to absent responses (stimulation index, SI) to the mitogen phytohemagglutinin (PHA). However, patients with combined immunodeficiency (CID) have more varied proliferative responses, and are open to a wide range of interpretations. Aims: To establish lymphocyte proliferation response reference ranges for patients with T cell defects, especially those with CID as well as healthy controls. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from charts of patients with a diagnosis of SCID (n = 39), CID (n = 52), or from healthy controls (n = 440). Reference percentiles were calculated using the 95% of the distribution of the test results. Results: The reference ranges for the control group ranged from 134 to 2220.5, whereas those with CID were distributed between 0.81 and 169.1. Patients with typical SCID had profound low proliferative responses, with SI <5. Conclusion: Our results highlight the variability of lymphocyte proliferation responses to PHA in patients with CID as well as healthy controls. These reference ranges will assist with the critical interpretation of assay results, particularly when values fall on the extreme end of the range. Statement of novelty: We provide reference ranges for lymphocyte proliferation responses to PHA from patients with CID and healthy controls.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".