Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, and Regulation of Immunity: Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immune system is regulated by a complex set of genetic, molecular, and cellular interactions. Rapid advances in the study of immunity and its network of interactions have been boosted by a spectrum of "omics" technologies that have generated huge amounts of data that have reached the status of big data (BD). With recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI), theoretical and clinical breakthroughs could emerge. Analyses of large data sets with AI tools will allow the formulation of new testable hypotheses open new research avenues and provide innovative strategies for regulating immunity and treating immunological diseases. This includes diagnosis and identification of rare diseases, prevention and treatment of autoimmune diseases, allergic disorders, infectious diseases, metabolomic disorders, cancer, and organ transplantation. However, ethical and regulatory challenges remain as to how these studies will be used to advance our understanding of basic immunology and how immunity might be regulated in health and disease. This will be particularly important for entities in which the complexity of interactions occurring at the same time and multiple cellular pathways have eluded conventional approaches to understanding and treatment. The analyses of BD by AI are likely to be complicated as both positive and negative outcomes of regulating immunity may have important ethical ramifications that need to be considered. We suggest there is an immediate need to develop guidelines as to how the analyses of immunological BD by AI tools should guide immune-based interventions to treat various diseases, prevent infections, and maintain health within an ethical framework.
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 | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".