T‐cell activation–induced marker assays in health and disease
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
Activation-induced marker (AIM) assays have proven to be an accessible and rapid means of antigen-specific T-cell detection. The method typically involves short-term incubation of whole blood or peripheral blood mononuclear cells with antigens of interest, where autologous antigen-presenting cells process and present peptides in complex with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules. Recognition of peptide-MHC complexes by T-cell receptors then induces upregulation of activation markers on the T cells that can be detected by flow cytometry. In this review, we highlight the most widely used activation markers for assays in the literature while identifying nuances and potential downfalls associated with the technique. We provide a summary of how AIM assays have been used in both discovery science and clinical studies, including studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunity. This review primarily focuses on AIM assays using human blood or peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples, with some considerations noted for tissue-derived T cells and nonhuman samples. AIM assays are a powerful tool that enables detailed analysis of antigen-specific T-cell frequency, phenotype and function without needing to know the precise antigenic peptides and their MHC restriction elements, enabling a wider analysis of immunity generated following infection and/or vaccination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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