MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168510851 · doi:10.2147/itt.s284823

Memory Generation and Re-Activation in Food Allergy

2021· review· en· W3168510851 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua F. E. Koenig, Kelly Bruton, Allyssa Phelps, Emily Grydziuszko, Rodrigo Jiménez‐Saiz, Manel Jordana

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunoTargets and Therapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónFood Allergy CanadaNutricia Research FoundationCanadian Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Foundation
KeywordsFood allergyAllergyPsychologyMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Recent evidence has highlighted the critical role of memory cells in maintaining lifelong food allergies, thereby identifying these cells as therapeutic targets. IgG + memory B cells replenish pools of IgE-secreting cells upon allergen exposure, which contract thereafter due to the short lifespan of tightly regulated IgE-expressing cells. Advances in the detection and highly dimensional analysis of allergen-specific B and T cells from allergic patients have provided insight on their phenotype and function. The newly identified Th2A and Tfh13 populations represent a leap in our understanding of allergen-specific T cell phenotypes, although how these populations contribute to IgE memory responses remains poorly understood. Within, we discuss the mechanisms by which memory B and T cells are activated, integrating knowledge from human systems and fundamental research. We then focus on memory reactivation, specifically, on the pathways of secondary IgE responses. Throughout, we identify areas of future research which will help identify immunotargets for a transformative therapy for food allergy. Keywords: food allergy, IgE, memory responses, anaphylaxis, B cells, T cells

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.017 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunoTargets and TherapySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207