MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W37158407 · doi:10.1093/cei/uxad051

La factura electrónica

2008· article· en· W37158407 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elena Davara Fernández de Marcos

Bibliographic record

VenueDiario La Ley · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative International Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are a subtype of CD4+ T cells that can mediate immune tolerance by a multitude of immunomodulatory mechanisms. Treg-based adoptive immunotherapy is currently being tested in multiple phases I and II clinical trials in transplantation and autoimmune diseases. We have learned from the work done on conventional T cells that distinct mechanistic states can define their dysfunctions, such as exhaustion, senescence, and anergy. All three can negatively impact the therapeutic effectiveness of T-cell-based therapies. However, whether Tregs are susceptible to such dysfunctional states is not well studied, and results are sometimes found to be controversial. In addition, Treg instability and loss of FOXP3 expression is another Treg-specific dysfunction that can decreasein their suppressive potential. A better understanding of Treg biology and pathological states will be needed to compare and interpret the results of the different clinical and preclinical trials. We will review herein Tregs' mechanisms of action, describe different T-cell dysfunction subtypes and how and if they apply to Tregs (exhaustion, senescence, anergy, and instability), and finally how this knowledge should be taken into consideration when designing and interpreting Treg adoptive immunotherapy trials.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4830.207

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiario La LeySame topicComparative International Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207