MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391718044 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102476

Innovative cellular therapies for autoimmune diseases: expert-based position statement and clinical practice recommendations from the EBMT practice harmonization and guidelines committee

2024· article· en· W4391718044 on OpenAlexaff
Raffaella Greco, Tobias Alexander, Nicoletta Del Papa, Fabian Müller, Riccardo Saccardi, Fermín Sánchez‐Guijo, Georg Schett, Basil Sharrack, John A. Snowden, Karin Tarte, Francesco Onida, Isabel Sánchez‐Ortega, Joachim Burman, Cristina Castilla Llorente, Ricard Cervera, Fabio Ciceri, Andrea Doria, Jörg Henes, James O. Lindsay, Andréas Mackensen, Paolo A. Muraro, Elena Ricart, Montserrat Rovira, Tsila Zuckerman, Ibrahim Yakoub‐Agha, Dominique Farge

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePosition paperPosition statementIntensive care medicineImmunosuppressionBest practiceHarmonizationImmunologyFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autoimmune diseases (ADs) are characterized by loss of immune tolerance, high chronicity, with substantial morbidity and mortality, despite conventional immunosuppression (IS) or targeted disease modifying therapies (DMTs), which usually require repeated administration. Recently, novel cellular therapies (CT), including mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC), Chimeric Antigen Receptors T cells (CART) and regulatory T cells (Tregs), have been successfully adopted in ADs. An international expert panel of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the International Society for the Cell and Gene Therapy, reviewed all available evidence, based on the current literature and expert practices, on use of MSC, CART and Tregs, in AD patients with rheumatological, neurological, and gastroenterological indications. Expert-based consensus and recommendations for best practice and quality of patient care were developed to support clinicians, scientists, and their multidisciplinary teams, as well as patients and care providers and will be regularly updated.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations84
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207