Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract I summarize how diverse mechanisms may contribute to self‐tolerance, and how an appreciation of their interdependence is necessary to understand how they collectively provide the imperfect degree of tolerance achieved. I suggest that the Quorum Hypothesis of Lymphocyte Activation incorporates one means of achieving peripheral tolerance. This hypothesis posits that the activation of all lymphocytes requires their antigen‐mediated interaction with other lymphocytes, whereas single lymphocytes are inactivated by antigen. Mature lymphocytes, specific for a peripheral self‐antigen, are eliminated as generated, one or a very few at a time, due to the first presence of the antigen early in development and continuously thereafter. There are limits to the circumstances under which this mechanism leads to tolerance. For example, if most self‐specific lymphocytes were not eliminated by the mechanism of central tolerance, the emigration of anti‐self lymphocytes, from primary lymphoid organs, would occur at so high a rate that the quorum mechanism would fail to eliminate but lead to their activation. Evolutionary considerations lead me to suggest that the thymic expression of certain self‐antigens, via such transcription factors as the autoimmune response element, allows more rapid immune responses against invaders without resulting in autoimmunity. This is clearly evolutionarily advantageous. It has been proposed that novel self‐antigens may be expressed at certain stages of life, such as adolescence. I discuss how tolerance to ‘adolescent antigens’ may be achieved, and to a special class of ‘newly arising self‐antigens’, namely idiotypic epitopes of the antigen‐specific receptors of B and T lymphocytes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".