ArticleImmunity2012
B cells, not just for antibody anymore.
Article in Immunity, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumor necrosis factor superfamily in innate immunity and inflammation.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2014Review
- Innate B cells: oxymoron or validated concept?F1000Research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
B cell antibody production is thought to be crucial for protection against virus infection. In this issue of Immunity, Moseman et al. (2012) illustrate an antibody-independent role for B cells in macrophage activation that prevents virus dissemination after subcutaneous infection.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.