Dual T-cell constant β chain (TRBC)1 and TRBC2 staining for the identification of T-cell neoplasms by flow cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The diagnosis of leukemic T-cell malignancies is often challenging, due to overlapping features with reactive T-cells and limitations of currently available T-cell clonality assays. Recently developed therapeutic antibodies specific for the mutually exclusive T-cell receptor constant β chain (TRBC)1 and TRBC2 isoforms provide a unique opportunity to assess for TRBC-restriction as a surrogate of clonality in the flow cytometric analysis of T-cell neoplasms. To demonstrate the diagnostic utility of this approach, we studied 164 clinical specimens with (60) or without (104) T-cell neoplasia, in addition to 39 blood samples from healthy donors. Dual TRBC1 and TRBC2 expression was studied within a comprehensive T-cell panel, in a fashion similar to the routine evaluation of kappa and lambda immunoglobulin light chains for the detection of clonal B-cells. Polytypic TRBC expression was demonstrated on total, CD4 + and CD8 + T-cells from all healthy donors; and by intracellular staining on benign T-cell precursors. All neoplastic T-cells were TRBC-restricted, except for 8 cases (13%) lacking TRBC expression. T-cell clones of uncertain significance were identified in 17 samples without T-cell malignancy (13%) and accounted for smaller subsets than neoplastic clones (median: 4.7 vs. 69% of lymphocytes, p < 0.0001). Single staining for TRBC1 produced spurious TRBC1-dim subsets in 24 clinical specimens (15%), all of which resolved with dual TRBC1/2 staining. Assessment of TRBC restriction by flow cytometry provides a rapid diagnostic method to detect clonal T-cells, and to accurately determine the targetable TRBC isoform expressed by T-cell malignancies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".