Can we predict T cell specificity with digital biology and machine learning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in machine learning and experimental biology have offered breakthrough solutions to problems such as protein structure prediction that were long thought to be intractable. However, despite the pivotal role of the T cell receptor (TCR) in orchestrating cellular immunity in health and disease, computational reconstruction of a reliable map from a TCR to its cognate antigens remains a holy grail of systems immunology. Current data sets are limited to a negligible fraction of the universe of possible TCR–ligand pairs, and performance of state-of-the-art predictive models wanes when applied beyond these known binders. In this Perspective article, we make the case for renewed and coordinated interdisciplinary effort to tackle the problem of predicting TCR–antigen specificity. We set out the general requirements of predictive models of antigen binding, highlight critical challenges and discuss how recent advances in digital biology such as single-cell technology and machine learning may provide possible solutions. Finally, we describe how predicting TCR specificity might contribute to our understanding of the broader puzzle of antigen immunogenicity. Koohy and co-workers discuss how we must turn to machine-learning approaches to define the antigen specificity of the many millions of possible T cell receptors. They review the models and methods currently being used to predict cognate antigens for orphan T cell receptors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".