Deconvolution of clinical variance in CAR-T cell pharmacology and response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) expansion and persistence vary widely among patients and predict both efficacy and toxicity. However, the mechanisms underlying clinical outcomes and patient variability are poorly defined. In this study, we developed a mathematical description of T cell responses wherein transitions among memory, effector and exhausted T cell states are coordinately regulated by tumor antigen engagement. The model is trained using clinical data from CAR-T products in different hematological malignancies and identifies cell-intrinsic differences in the turnover rate of memory cells and cytotoxic potency of effectors as the primary determinants of clinical response. Using a machine learning workflow, we demonstrate that product-intrinsic differences can accurately predict patient outcomes based on pre-infusion transcriptomes, and additional pharmacological variance arises from cellular interactions with patient tumors. We found that transcriptional signatures outperform T cell immunophenotyping as predictive of clinical response for two CD19-targeted CAR-T products in three indications, enabling a new phase of predictive CAR-T product development.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".