MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923979336 · doi:10.1111/cei.13297

Methods to manufacture regulatory T cells for cell therapy

2019· review· en· W2923979336 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine N. MacDonald, James M. Piret, Megan K. Levings

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical & Experimental Immunology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNetworks of Centres of Excellence of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBC Children’s Hospital FoundationCanadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program
KeywordsClinical trialCell therapyMedicineGenome editingDiseaseGenetic enhancementRegulatory T cellImmunologyT cellCellImmune systemComputational biologyGenomeBiologyGeneInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Regulatory T cell (Treg) therapy has shown promise in early clinical trials for treating graft-versus-host disease, transplant rejection and autoimmune disorders. A challenge has been to isolate sufficiently pure Tregs and expand them to a clinical dose. However, there has been considerable progress in the development and optimization of these methods, resulting in a variety of manufacturing protocols being tested in clinical trials. In this review, we summarize methods that have been used to manufacture Tregs for clinical trials, including the choice of cell source and protocols for cell isolation and expansion. We also discuss alternative culture or genome editing methods for modulating Treg specificity, function or stability that could be applied to future clinical manufacturing protocols to increase the efficacy of Treg therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations94
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical & Experimental ImmunologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207