ArticleImmunologic research2015
Analysis of Paris meeting redefining the "self" of the immune system.
Article in Immunologic research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Centered Function of Adaptive Immunity in Regulation of Immune Responses and in Tolerance.Journal of immunology research · 2021Review
- T cell responses to tumor: how dominant assumptions on immune activity led to a neglect of pathological functions, and how evolutionary considerations can help identify testable hypotheses for improving immunotherapy.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2018Review
- Learning from a contemporary history of immunology.Immunologic research · 2017Review
- Continuous Dual Resetting of the Immune Repertoire as a Basic Principle of the Immune System Function.Journal of immunology research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some ideas because of their intuitive appeal never die by neglect and survive because they are not amenable to experimental disproof. They can only be evaluated by weighing them against competing ideas and by invoking a credibility factor when used to explain observation. Most scientists would recommend ignoring such ideas, yet there is much to be learned by engaging their proponents in debate. The immune system viewed as an idiotype network, and its tweaking by the new school of "contextualists" is an example of such an idea. As chance would have it, the supporters of this idea gathered in a meeting, thereby permitting a cumulative analysis of this conceptualization. The goal of this essay is to compare the views of each of the speakers in light of a competing theory with the hope that a better understanding of immune responsiveness will emerge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25784623What 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.