MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412824780 · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01809-6

Design specifications for biomedical virtual twins in engineered adoptive cellular immunotherapies

2025· review· en· W4412824780 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrike Weirauch, Markus Kreuz, Colin Birkenbihl, Miriam Alb, Maria Quaranta, Laurence Calzone, Sophia Orozco-Ruiz, Stefanie Binder, Luise Fischer, Solène Clavreul, Morine Maguri, Maximilian Ferle, Michael Rade, Guillaume Azarias, Jay R. Hydren, Jakub Jamárik, Dániel Schwarz, Zsolt Sebestyén, Jürgen Kuball, Georg Popp, Chloé Antoine, Manon Knockaert, Clara T. Schoeder, David Fandrei, Carmen Sanges, Vaclovas Radvilas, Nico Gagelmann, Olaf Penack, Stephan Fricke, Andreas Schmidt, Carol Ward, Carl Steinbeißer, Jean-Marc Van Gyseghem, Anna Niarakis, Laurent Garderet, Michael Hudecek, Thomas Neumuth, Uwe Platzbecker, Ulrike Koehl, Regina Demlová, Andreas Kremer, Stefan Franke, Holger Fröhlich, Maximilian Merz, Kristin Reiche

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
FundersNational Cancer InstituteEuropean Commission
KeywordsImmune systemComputer scienceComputational biologyAdoptive cell transferPsychologyNeuroscienceHuman–computer interactionMedicineBiologyImmunologyT cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In (immune)oncology, virtual twins (VTs) offer patient-individual decision support. Nevertheless, current VTs do not incorporate the unique properties of engineered adoptive cellular immunotherapies (eACIs). Here, we outline the minimal design specifications for VTs for engineered ACIs (eACI-VTs) to model the complex interplay between cell product and patient physiology. We motivate utilizing VTs in eACIs to provide decision support and reflect on how eACI-VTs can support the widespread use of eACIs.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207