MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093627928 · doi:10.1002/eji.202048761

Human CXCR5 <sup>+</sup> PD‐1 <sup>+</sup> CD8 T cells in healthy individuals and patients with hematologic malignancies

2020· article· en· W3093627928 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Hofland, Anne W. J. Martens, Jaco A. C. van Bruggen, Renate de Boer, Sjoerd Schetters, Ester B. M. Remmerswaal, Fréderike J. Bemelman, Mark‐David Levin, Adriaan D. Bins, Eric Eldering, Arnon P. Kater, Sanne H. Tonino

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Immunology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersZonMw
KeywordsCytotoxic T cellCD8CXCR5BiologyCancer researchInterleukin 21Immune systemImmune checkpointImmunologyImmunotherapyIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has revolutionized cancer therapy, but varying response rates illustrate the need for biomarkers of response. Studies in mice have identified a subset of CD8 T cells that is essential for response to PD‐1 ICB. These CD8 T cells co‐express CXCR5, PD‐1 and Tcf1, and provide effector T cells upon PD‐1 ICB. It is unknown whether similar T cells play a role in PD‐1 ICB in humans. We studied human peripheral blood and lymph nodes (LNs) for the frequency, phenotype, and functionality of CXCR5 + PD‐1 + CD8 T cells. We find that CXCR5 + PD‐1 + CD8 T cells are memory‐like cells, express Tcf1, and lack expression of effector molecules. CXCR5 + PD‐1 + CD8 T cells produce cytokines upon stimulation, but have limited proliferative capacity. We studied patients with hematologic malignancies with varying response rates to PD‐1 ICB. Specifically in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in which PD‐1 ICB does not induce clinical responses, CXCR5 + PD‐1 + CD8 T cells show loss of the memory phenotype and increased effector differentiation. In conclusion, we identified CXCR5 + PD‐1 + CD8 T cells in human peripheral blood and LN, which could play a similar role during PD‐1 ICB. Future studies should analyze CXCR5 + PD‐1 + CD8 T cells during PD‐1 ICB and their importance for therapeutic response.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of ImmunologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207