ReviewImmunologic research2017
Learning from a contemporary history of immunology.
Review in Immunologic research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This essay is a selected aspect of the history of contemporary immunology seen from a "what can we learn" point of view. It is limited to the ideas and experiments from which we might draw a take-home message. The emphasis is on the convoluted pathway that was actually used by immunologists to arrive at understanding compared to the direct pathway that could have been used given the knowledge at that time. It takes the reader through the instructionist era of the 1940s to the present by stressing the elements of thinking most conducive to the arrival at a default understanding of the intact immune system. It is a personalized account because the author participated directly in the debates that led eventually to agreed-upon or default conceptualizations. Given this, a peek at the future is attempted as a test of the validity of a Cartesian or reductionist approach to arriving at simplification of complexity and at the maximizing of generalization. A reasoned guess (i.e., a theory) is the only way we have to understand the world around us.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28191593What 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.