Reconciling Mouse and Human Immunology at the Altar of Genetics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunity to infection has been extensively studied in humans and mice bearing naturally occurring or experimentally introduced germline mutations. Mouse studies are sometimes neglected by human immunologists, on the basis that mice are not humans and the infections studied are experimental and not natural. Conversely, human studies are sometimes neglected by mouse immunologists, on the basis of the uncontrolled conditions of study and small numbers of patients. However, both sides would agree that the infectious phenotypes of patients with inborn errors of immunity often differ from those of the corresponding mutant mice. Why is that? We argue that this important question is best addressed by revisiting and reinterpreting the findings of both mouse and human studies from a genetic perspective. Greater caution is required for reverse-genetics studies than for forward-genetics studies, but genetic analysis is sufficiently strong to define the studies likely to stand the test of time. Genetically robust mouse and human studies can provide invaluable complementary insights into the mechanisms of immunity to infection common and specific to these two species.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it