MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387307283 · doi:10.3390/vaccines11101559

Dendritic Cell Vaccines Impact the Type 2 Innate Lymphoid Cell Population and Their Cytokine Generation in Mice

2023· article· en· W4387307283 on OpenAlexafffund
Lily Chan, Yeganeh Mehrani, Jessica A. Minott, Byram W. Bridle, Khalil Karimi

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccines · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicIL-33, ST2, and ILC Pathways
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCancer Research Society
KeywordsInnate lymphoid cellImmune systemImmunologyDendritic cellImmunotherapyInnate immune systemVaccinationCytokineBiologyPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dendritic cell (DC) vaccines can stimulate the immune system to target cancer antigens, making them a promising therapy in immunotherapy. Clinical trials have shown limited effectiveness of DC vaccines, highlighting the need to enhance the immune responses they generate. Innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) are a diverse group of innate leukocytes that produce various cytokines and regulate the immune system. These cells have the potential to improve immunotherapies. There is not much research on how group 2 ILCs (ILC2s) communicate with DC vaccines. Therefore, examining the roles of DC vaccination in immune responses is crucial. Our research analyzed the effects of DC vaccination on the ILC2 populations and their cytokine production. By exploring the relationship between ILC2s and DCs, we aimed to understand how this could affect DC-based immunotherapies. The results showed an increase in the number of ILC2s in the local draining lymph node and spleen of tumor-free mice, as well as in the lungs of mice challenged with tumors in a pulmonary metastasis model. This suggests a complex interplay between DC-based vaccines and ILC2s, which is further influenced by the presence of tumors.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccinesSame topicIL-33, ST2, and ILC PathwaysFrench-language works237,207