MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320810998 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104465

Selective emergence of antibody-secreting cells in the multiple sclerosis brain

2023· article· en· W4320810998 on OpenAlexaff
Laurens Bogers, Hendrik J. Engelenburg, Malou Janssen, Peter‐Paul A. Unger, Marie‐José Melief, Annet F. Wierenga‐Wolf, Cheng‐Chih Hsiao, Matthew R. J. Mason, Jörg Hamann, Jamie van Langelaar, Joost Smolders, Marvin M. van Luijn

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersStichting MS Research
KeywordsPathologyMultiple sclerosisAntibodyBiologyCerebrospinal fluidFlow cytometryImmunologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although distinct brain-homing B cells have been identified in multiple sclerosis (MS), it is unknown how these further evolve to contribute to local pathology. We explored B-cell maturation in the central nervous system (CNS) of MS patients and determined their association with immunoglobulin (Ig) production, T-cell presence, and lesion formation. METHODS: Ex vivo flow cytometry was performed on post-mortem blood, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), meninges and white matter from 28 MS and 10 control brain donors to characterize B cells and antibody-secreting cells (ASCs). MS brain tissue sections were analysed with immunostainings and microarrays. IgG index and CSF oligoclonal bands were measured with nephelometry, isoelectric focusing, and immunoblotting. Blood-derived B cells were cocultured under T follicular helper-like conditions to evaluate their ASC-differentiating capacity in vitro. FINDINGS: memory T cells positively correlated with ASC presence, reflected by local interplay with T cells. INTERPRETATION: memory T cells. FUNDING: Stichting MS Research (19-1057 MS; 20-490f MS), National MS Fonds (OZ2018-003).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207