MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412712532 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32080425

Clinical Impact of CTLA-4 Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism in DLBCL Patients Treated with CAR-T Cell Therapy

2025· article· en· W4412712532 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katja Seipel, Inna Shaforostova, Henning Nilius, Ulrike Bacher, Thomas Pabst

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismInternal medicineOncologyBioinformaticsGeneticsComputational biologyBiologyGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FMC63-CAR T cell therapy targeting CD19 protein on malignant B-cells is effective in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL), with complete response rates of 43–54%. Common germline variants of the immune-checkpoint regulator CTLA-4 may elicit different responses to CAR-T cell therapy. The CTLA4 gene single-nucleotide polymorphism rs231775 coding threonine or alanine at amino acid position 17 of the CTLA-4 protein was prevalent in 55% of the studied DLBCL patients. In a retrospective comparative analysis of clinical outcome, there were significant differences in CTLA4 A17hom vs. T17Ahet and T17hom carriers with four-year progression-free survival at 77%, 59%, and 30% (p = 0.019), four-year overall survival was 79%, 41%, and 33% (p = 0.049), the relapse rates were 20%, 37%, and 56% (p = 0.025), and the death rates 20%, 54%, and 52% (p = 0.049). Conclusions: CTLA4 rs231775 polymorphism may impact the treatment outcome in FMC63-anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy, with an association of the CTLA4 minor allele A17 to favorable treatment outcome.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207