Novel approach to analysis of the immune system using an ungated model of immune surface marker abundance to predict health outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the immune system is understood to be divided into discrete cell types that are identified via surface markers. While some cell type distinctions are no doubt discrete, others may in fact vary on a continum, and even within discrete types, differences in surface marker abundance could have functional implications. Here we propose a new way of looking at immune data, which is by looking directly at the values of the surface markers without dividing the cells into different subtypes. To assess the merit of this approach, we compared it with manual gating using cytometry data from the Singapore Longitudinal Aging Study (SLAS) database. We used two different neural networks (one for each method) to predict the presence of several health conditions. We found that the model built using raw surface marker abundance outperformed the manual gating one and we were able to identify some markers that contributed more to the predictions. This study is intended as a brief proof-of-concept and was not designed to predict health outcomes in an applied setting; nonetheless, it demonstrates that alternative methods to understand the structure of immune variation hold substantial progress.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".