MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409973477 · doi:10.4110/in.2025.25.e17

Cytokines in Focus: IL-2 and IL-15 in NK Adoptive Cell Cancer Immunotherapy

2025· review· en· W4409973477 on OpenAlexafffund
Bryan Marr, Donghyeon Jo, Mihue Jang, Seung-Hwan Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueImmune Network · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and ImmunityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Research Foundation
KeywordsAdoptive immunotherapyCancer immunotherapyMedicineImmunotherapyAdoptive cell transferImmunologyInterleukin 15T cellCancer researchInterleukinCytokineImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NK cell adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has emerged as a promising strategy for cancer immunotherapy, offering advantages in scalability, accessibility, efficacy, and safety.Ex vivo activation and expansion protocols, incorporating feeder cells and cytokine cocktails, have enabled the production of highly functional NK cells in clinically relevant quantities.Advances in NK cell engineering, including CRISPR-mediated gene editing and chimeric Ag receptor technologies, have further enhanced cytotoxicity, persistence, and tumor targeting.Cytokine support post-adoptive transfer, particularly with IL-2 and IL-15, remains critical for promoting NK cell survival, proliferation, and anti-tumor activity despite persistent challenges such as regulatory T cell expansion and cytokine-related toxicities.This review explores the evolving roles of IL-2 and IL-15 in NK cell-based ACT, evaluating their potential and limitations, and highlights strategies to optimize these cytokines for effective cancer immunotherapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmune NetworkSame topicImmune Cell Function and InteractionFrench-language works237,207