The Human Immunopeptidome Project: A Roadmap to Predict and Treat Immune Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The science that investigates the ensembles of all peptides associated to human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules is termed "immunopeptidomics" and is typically driven by mass spectrometry (MS) technologies. Recent advances in MS technologies, neoantigen discovery and cancer immunotherapy have catalyzed the launch of the Human Immunopeptidome Project (HIPP) with the goal of providing a complete map of the human immunopeptidome and making the technology so robust that it will be available in every clinic. Here, we provide a long-term perspective of the field and we use this framework to explore how we think the completion of the HIPP will truly impact the society in the future. In this context, we introduce the concept of immunopeptidome-wide association studies (IWAS). We highlight the importance of large cohort studies for the future and how applying quantitative immunopeptidomics at population scale may provide a new look at individual predisposition to common immune diseases as well as responsiveness to vaccines and immunotherapies. Through this vision, we aim to provide a fresh view of the field to stimulate new discussions within the community, and present what we see as the key challenges for the future for unlocking the full potential of immunopeptidomics in this era of precision medicine.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".