MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375857178 · doi:10.1016/j.xpro.2023.102289

High-throughput interrogation of immune responses using the Human Immune Profiling Pipeline

2023· article· en· W4375857178 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guanning Wang, Olga Lyudovyk, Justin Kim, Ya-Hui Lin, Yuval Elhanati, Divij Mathew, E. John Wherry, Ramin S. Herati, Allison R. Greenplate, Benjamin D. Greenbaum, Santosha A. Vardhana, Alexander C. Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueSTAR Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesPerelman School of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaNational Institutes of HealthTara Miller Melanoma FoundationUniversity of PennsylvaniaGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AlliancePershing Square Sohn Cancer Research AllianceW. W. Smith Charitable TrustNew York UniversityParker Institute for Cancer ImmunotherapyDamon Runyon Cancer Research FoundationYork UniversityBristol-Myers SquibbNational Cancer InstituteInstitute for Translational Medicine and TherapeuticsConrad N. Hilton FoundationDoris Duke Charitable Foundation
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)Immune systemImmunotherapyMass cytometryComputer scienceCluster analysisComputational biologyClinical trialMedicineBioinformaticsImmunologyBiologyArtificial intelligencePhenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current abundance of immunotherapy clinical trials presents an opportunity to learn about the underlying mechanisms and pharmacodynamic effects of novel drugs on the human immune system. Here, we present a protocol to study how these immune responses impact clinical outcomes using large-scale high-throughput immune profiling of clinical cohorts. We describe the Human Immune Profiling Pipeline, which comprises an end-to-end solution from flow cytometry results to computational approaches and unsupervised patient clustering based on lymphocyte landscape. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Lyudovyk et al. (2022).1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSTAR ProtocolsSame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207