MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6987588961

Suppressive activity of CD4+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in an animal model of spontaneous CD8+ T cell-mediated demyelinating disease

2012· dissertation· en· W6987588961 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFOXP3Regulatory T cellDemyelinating diseaseDiseaseCD8T cellEffectorPopulationFunction (biology)T lymphocyte
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Fournier's laboratory has generated a mouse strain (L31 mice) that spontaneously develops a CD8+ T cell-mediated demyelinating disease in the central nervous system. In this model of dysregulated costimulation, CD4+ T cells have a regulatory role. A subset of CD4+ regulatory T cells that express the transcription factor Foxp3 have been shown to regulate autoimmune responses. In order to investigate this population's role in disease development, the goal of my M.Sc research project was to functionally characterize the CD4+Foxp3+ regulatory T cell population in L31 mice.We found that regulatory T cells from L31 mice were impaired in their ability to suppress the proliferation of effector T cells in vitro. In part, this was because B7.2 (CD86) expression impeded regulatory T cell suppressive activity. However, regulatory T cells delayed the onset of neurological symptoms in vivo. Although L31 Treg are not suppressive in vitro, our in vivo data suggest that they have a regulatory function in L31 disease development. This dichotomy could provide insights into the mechanisms by which these regulatory T cells control disease development in L31 mice.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→