Enhanced detection of antigen-specific T cells by a multiplexed AIM assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Broadly applicable methods to identify and characterize antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are key to immunology research, including studies of vaccine responses and immunity to infectious diseases. We developed a multiplexed activation-induced marker (AIM) assay that presents several advantages compared to single pairs of AIMs. The simultaneous measurement of four AIMs (CD69, 4-1BB, OX40, and CD40L) creates six AIM pairs that define CD4+ T cell populations with partial and variable overlap. When combined in an AND/OR Boolean gating strategy for analysis, this approach enhances CD4+ T cell detection compared to any single AIM pair, while CD8+ T cells are dominated by CD69/4-1BB co-expression. Supervised and unsupervised clustering analyses show differential expression of the AIMs in defined T helper lineages and that multiplexing mitigates phenotypic biases. Paired and unpaired comparisons of responses to infections (HIV and cytomegalovirus [CMV]) and vaccination (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) validate the robustness and versatility of the method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".