Immunotherapy for B-Cell Neoplasms using T Cells expressing Chimeric Antigen Receptors : From antigen choice to clinical implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunotherapy with T cells expressing chimeric antigen receptors (CAR) is being evaluated as a potential treatment for B-cell neoplasms. In recent clinical trials it has shown promising results. As the number of potential candidate antigens expands, the choice of suitable target antigens becomes more challenging to design studies and to assess optimal efficacy of CAR. Careful evaluation of candidate target antigens is required to ensure that T cells expressing CAR will preferentially kill malignant cells with a minimal toxicity against normal tissues. B cells express specific surface antigens that can theoretically act as targets for CAR design. Although many of these antigens can stimulate effective cellular immune responses in vivo, their implementation in clinical settings remains a challenge. Only targeted B-cell antigens CD19 and CD20 have been tested in clinical trials. This article reviews exploitable B cell surface antigens for CAR design and examines obstacles that could interfere with the identification of potentially useful cellular targets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".