MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296774166 · doi:10.1063/5.0098578

Engineering physical microenvironments to study innate immune cell biophysics

2022· review· en· W4296774166 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikita Kalashnikov, Christopher Moraes

Bibliographic record

VenueAPL Bioengineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsInnate immune systemImmune systemBiologyInnate lymphoid cellImmunityNeuroscienceContext (archaeology)InflammationImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innate immunity forms the core of the human body's defense system against infection, injury, and foreign objects. It aims to maintain homeostasis by promoting inflammation and then initiating tissue repair, but it can also lead to disease when dysregulated. Although innate immune cells respond to their physical microenvironment and carry out intrinsically mechanical actions such as migration and phagocytosis, we still do not have a complete biophysical description of innate immunity. Here, we review how engineering tools can be used to study innate immune cell biophysics. We first provide an overview of innate immunity from a biophysical perspective, review the biophysical factors that affect the innate immune system, and then explore innate immune cell biophysics in the context of migration, phagocytosis, and phenotype polarization. Throughout the review, we highlight how physical microenvironments can be designed to probe the innate immune system, discuss how biophysical insight gained from these studies can be used to generate a more comprehensive description of innate immunity, and briefly comment on how this insight could be used to develop mechanical immune biomarkers and immunomodulatory therapies.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAPL BioengineeringSame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207