MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398224649 · doi:10.1016/j.imlet.2024.106870

The Th1/Th2 paradigm: A misrepresentation of helper T cell plasticity

2024· review· en· W4398224649 on OpenAlex
Noah P. Rogozynski, Brian Dixon

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunology Letters · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMisrepresentationContext (archaeology)Paradigm shiftT helper cellBiologyT cellMass cytometryCognitive scienceNeuroscienceImmune systemImmunologyPsychologyEpistemologyGeneticsPolitical sciencePhenotypePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For decades, the Th1/2 paradigm has been used to classify immune responses as either Th1 or Th2-biased. However, in recent years, a staggering amount of evidence has emerged to support rejection of the classical Th1/Th2 paradigm, such as the discoveries of new helper T cell subsets, helper T cell plasticity and protective mixed-Th1/Th2 responses. This opinion piece investigates the shortcomings of classical Th1/Th2 paradigm in the context of recent works, with the goal of facilitating the development of newer models to represent the diversity of Th cells.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.005

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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