MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366405937 · doi:10.1089/genbio.2023.0008

Engineering T Cell Development for the Next Generation of Stem Cell-Derived Immunotherapies

2023· review· en· W4366405937 on OpenAlexafffund
Yale S. Michaels, Lauren J. Durland, Peter W. Zandstra

Bibliographic record

VenueGEN Biotechnology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCStem Cell Network
KeywordsInduced pluripotent stem cellStem cellCell therapyImmunotherapyT cellComputer scienceMedicineComputational biologyBiologyImmunologyImmune systemCell biologyEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineered T cells are at the leading edge of clinical cell therapy. T cell therapies have had a remarkable impact on patient care for a subset of hematological malignancies. This foundation has motivated the development of off-the-shelf engineered cell therapies for a broad range of devastating indications. Achieving this vision will require cost-effective manufacturing of precision cell products capable of addressing multiple process and clinical-design challenges. Pluripotent stem cell (PSC)-derived engineered T cells are emerging as a solution of choice. To unleash the full potential of PSC-derived T cell therapies, the field will require technologies capable of robustly orchestrating the complex series of time- and dose-dependent signaling events needed to recreate functional T cell development in the laboratory. In this article, we review the current state of allogenic T cell therapies, focusing on strategies to generate engineered lymphoid cells from PSCs. We highlight exciting recent progress in this field and outline timely opportunities for advancement with an emphasis on niche engineering and synthetic biology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGEN BiotechnologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207