MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6981757117

Factors influencing the murine B and T cell response to human 2-glycoprotein I

2002· dissertation· en· W6981757117 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2002
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArthritis Society
KeywordsT cellAntigenHyperimmunizationCytotoxic T cellAntigen-presenting cellAntigen processingAntibodyT lymphocyteMajor histocompatibility complex
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is defined by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and clinical manifestations. It is unclear why some patients have high levels of aPL, but no clinical symptoms, while others develop APS. Recent studies have demonstrated T cell reactivity to beta2-glycoprotein I (beta2GPI) in patients with APS. To understand why a T cell response develops selectively in some individuals the requirements for antigen presentation and T cell reactivity were evaluated in a murine model of aPL induction. aPL were readily induced in immunized mice, and required MHC class II, but not CD1, antigen presentation. In contrast, induction of a measurable T cell response to beta2GPI necessitated hyperimmunization in the presence of a polyclonal activator. T cells reacted more to reduced, than native, beta2GPI, suggesting that disulfide bond reduction facilitates antigen processing. These results suggest that a T cell response to beta2GPI occurs only in individuals repeatedly exposed to antigen in a proinflammatory environment.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicHip disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→