Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31922055›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in systems biology2019

Current estimates of T cell kinetics in humans.

Derek C Macallan, Robert Busch, Becca Asquith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in systems biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Hydrodynamic dispersion drives viral-cellular contact for gene delivery in porous media.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Constraints and tunability of antigen-agnostic memory durability.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. KIR-HLA interactions extend human CD8+ T cell lifespan in vivo.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Derek C MacallanInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Robert BuschDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Roehampton, London, UK.
Becca AsquithDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G1001052Wellcome Trust 103865
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stable isotope labeling is a generally applicable method of quantifying cell dynamics. Its advent has opened up the way for the quantitative study of T cells in humans. However, the literature is confusing as estimates vary by orders of magnitude between studies. In this short review we aim to explain the reasons for the discrepancies in estimates, clarify which estimates have been superseded and why and highlight the current best estimates. We focus on stable isotope labeling of T cell subsets in healthy humans.

Indexed as

Best estimatesCentral memoryDeath rateDynamicsEffector memoryHalf lifeHumanIn vivoKineticsLifespanMathematical modelNaiveProliferation rateStable isotope labellingStem cell-like memoryT cell

Identifiers

PMID31922055
PMCPMC6941842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.