51 research outputs found
Evaluation in artificial intelligence: From task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10462-016-9505-7.The evaluation of artificial intelligence systems and components is crucial for the
progress of the discipline. In this paper we describe and critically assess the different ways
AI systems are evaluated, and the role of components and techniques in these systems. We
first focus on the traditional task-oriented evaluation approach. We identify three kinds of
evaluation: human discrimination, problem benchmarks and peer confrontation. We describe
some of the limitations of the many evaluation schemes and competitions in these three categories,
and follow the progression of some of these tests. We then focus on a less customary
(and challenging) ability-oriented evaluation approach, where a system is characterised by
its (cognitive) abilities, rather than by the tasks it is designed to solve. We discuss several
possibilities: the adaptation of cognitive tests used for humans and animals, the development
of tests derived from algorithmic information theory or more integrated approaches under
the perspective of universal psychometrics. We analyse some evaluation tests from AI that
are better positioned for an ability-oriented evaluation and discuss how their problems and
limitations can possibly be addressed with some of the tools and ideas that appear within
the paper. Finally, we enumerate a series of lessons learnt and generic guidelines to be used
when an AI evaluation scheme is under consideration.I thank the organisers of the AEPIA Summer School On Artificial Intelligence, held in September 2014, for giving me the opportunity to give a lecture on 'AI Evaluation'. This paper was born out of and evolved through that lecture. The information about many benchmarks and competitions discussed in this paper have been contrasted with information from and discussions with many people: M. Bedia, A. Cangelosi, C. Dimitrakakis, I. GarcIa-Varea, Katja Hofmann, W. Langdon, E. Messina, S. Mueller, M. Siebers and C. Soares. Figure 4 is courtesy of F. Martinez-Plumed. Finally, I thank the anonymous reviewers, whose comments have helped to significantly improve the balance and coverage of the paper. This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish MINECO under Grants TIN 2013-45732-C4-1-P, TIN 2015-69175-C4-1-R and by Generalitat Valenciana PROMETEOII2015/013.JosĂ© HernĂĄndez-Orallo (2016). Evaluation in artificial intelligence: From task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement. Artificial Intelligence Review. 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9505-7S151Abel D, Agarwal A, Diaz F, Krishnamurthy A, Schapire RE (2016) Exploratory gradient boosting for reinforcement learning in complex domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04119Adams S, Arel I, Bach J, Coop R, Furlan R, Goertzel B, Hall JS, Samsonovich A, Scheutz M, Schlesinger M, Shapiro SC, Sowa J (2012) Mapping the landscape of human-level artificial general intelligence. AI Mag 33(1):25â42Adams SS, Banavar G, Campbell M (2016) I-athlon: towards a multi-dimensional Turing test. AI Mag 37(1):78â84AlcalĂĄ J, FernĂĄndez A, Luengo J, Derrac J, GarcĂa S, SĂĄnchez L, Herrera F (2010) Keel data-mining software tool: data set repository, integration of algorithms and experimental analysis framework. J Mult Valued Logic Soft Comput 17:255â287Alexander JRM, Smales S (1997) Intelligence, learning and long-term memory. Personal Individ Differ 23(5):815â825Alpcan T, Everitt T, Hutter M (2014) Can we measure the difficulty of an optimization problem? In: IEEE information theory workshop (ITW)Alur R, Bodik R, Juniwal G, Martin MMK, Raghothaman M, Seshia SA, Singh R, Solar-Lezama A, Torlak E, Udupa A (2013) Syntax-guided synthesis. In: Formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD), 2013, IEEE, pp 1â17Alvarado N, Adams SS, Burbeck S, Latta C (2002) Beyond the Turing test: performance metrics for evaluating a computer simulation of the human mind. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on development and learning, IEEE, pp 147â152Amigoni F, Bastianelli E, Berghofer J, Bonarini A, Fontana G, Hochgeschwender N, Iocchi L, Kraetzschmar G, Lima P, Matteucci M, Miraldo P, Nardi D, Schiaffonati V (2015) Competitions for benchmarking: task and functionality scoring complete performance assessment. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 22(3):53â61Anderson J, Lebiere C (2003) The Newell test for a theory of cognition. Behav Brain Sci 26(5):587â601Anderson J, Baltes J, Cheng CT (2011) Robotics competitions as benchmarks for AI research. Knowl Eng Rev 26(01):11â17Arel I, Rose DC, Karnowski TP (2010) Deep machine learningâa new frontier in artificial intelligence research. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 5(4):13â18Asada M, Hosoda K, Kuniyoshi Y, Ishiguro H, Inui T, Yoshikawa Y, Ogino M, Yoshida C (2009) Cognitive developmental robotics: a survey. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 1(1):12â34Aziz H, Brill M, Fischer F, Harrenstein P, Lang J, Seedig HG (2015) Possible and necessary winners of partial tournaments. J Artif Intell Res 54:493â534Bache K, Lichman M (2013) UCI machine learning repository. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/mlBagnall AJ, Zatuchna ZV (2005) On the classification of maze problems. In: Bull L, Kovacs T (eds) Foundations of learning classifier system. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol. 183, Springer, pp 305â316. http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11319122_12Baldwin D, Yadav SB (1995) The process of research investigations in artificial intelligence - a unified view. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(5):852â861Bellemare MG, Naddaf Y, Veness J, Bowling M (2013) The arcade learning environment: an evaluation platform for general agents. J Artif Intell Res 47:253â279Besold TR (2014) A note on chances and limitations of psychometric ai. In: KI 2014: advances in artificial intelligence. Springer, pp 49â54Biever C (2011) Ultimate IQ: one test to rule them all. New Sci 211(2829, 10 September 2011):42â45Borg M, Johansen SS, Thomsen DL, Kraus M (2012) Practical implementation of a graphics Turing test. In: Advances in visual computing. Springer, pp 305â313Boring EG (1923) Intelligence as the tests test it. New Repub 35â37Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, OxfordBrazdil P, Carrier CG, Soares C, Vilalta R (2008) Metalearning: applications to data mining. Springer, New YorkBringsjord S (2011) Psychometric artificial intelligence. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 23(3):271â277Bringsjord S, Schimanski B (2003) What is artificial intelligence? Psychometric AI as an answer. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 887â893Brundage M (2016) Modeling progress in ai. AAAI 2016 Workshop on AI, Ethics, and SocietyBuchanan BG (1988) Artificial intelligence as an experimental science. Springer, New YorkBuhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazonâs mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6(1):3â5Bursztein E, Aigrain J, Moscicki A, Mitchell JC (2014) The end is nigh: generic solving of text-based captchas. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX conference on Offensive Technologies, USENIX Association, p 3Campbell M, Hoane AJ, Hsu F (2002) Deep Blue. Artif Intell 134(1â2):57â83Cangelosi A, Schlesinger M, Smith LB (2015) Developmental robotics: from babies to robots. MIT Press, CambridgeCaputo B, MĂŒller H, Martinez-Gomez J, Villegas M, Acar B, Patricia N, Marvasti N, ĂskĂŒdarlı S, Paredes R, Cazorla M et al (2014) Imageclef 2014: overview and analysis of the results. In: Information access evaluation. Multilinguality, multimodality, and interaction, Springer, pp 192â211Carlson A, Betteridge J, Kisiel B, Settles B, Hruschka ER Jr, Mitchell TM (2010) Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning. In: AAAI, vol 5, p 3Carroll JB (1993) Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCaruana R (1997) Multitask learning. Mach Learn 28(1):41â75Chaitin GJ (1982) Gödelâs theorem and information. Int J Theor Phys 21(12):941â954Chandrasekaran B (1990) What kind of information processing is intelligence? In: The foundation of artificial intelligenceâa sourcebook. Cambridge University Press, pp 14â46Chater N (1999) The search for simplicity: a fundamental cognitive principle? Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 52(2):273â302Chater N, VitĂĄnyi P (2003) Simplicity: a unifying principle in cognitive science? Trends Cogn Sci 7(1):19â22Chu Z, Gianvecchio S, Wang H, Jajodia S (2010) Who is tweeting on twitter: human, bot, or cyborg? In: Proceedings of the 26th annual computer security applications conference, ACM, pp 21â30Cochran WG (2007) Sampling techniques. Wiley, New YorkCohen PR, Howe AE (1988) How evaluation guides AI research: the message still counts more than the medium. AI Mag 9(4):35Cohen Y (2013) Testing and cognitive enhancement. Technical repor, National Institute for Testing and Evaluation, Jerusalem, IsraelConrad JG, Zeleznikow J (2013) The significance of evaluation in AI and law: a case study re-examining ICAIL proceedings. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 186â191Conrad JG, Zeleznikow J (2015) The role of evaluation in ai and law. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 181â186Deary IJ, Der G, Ford G (2001) Reaction times and intelligence differences: a population-based cohort study. Intelligence 29(5):389â399Decker KS, Durfee EH, Lesser VR (1989) Evaluating research in cooperative distributed problem solving. Distrib Artif Intell 2:487â519DemĆĄar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1â30Detterman DK (2011) A challenge to Watson. Intelligence 39(2â3):77â78Dimitrakakis C (2016) Personal communicationDimitrakakis C, Li G, Tziortziotis N (2014) The reinforcement learning competition 2014. AI Mag 35(3):61â65Dowe DL (2013) Introduction to Ray Solomonoff 85th memorial conference. In: Dowe DL (ed) Algorithmic probability and friends. Bayesian prediction and artificial intelligence, lecture notes in computer science, vol 7070. Springer, Berlin, pp 1â36Dowe DL, Hajek AR (1997) A computational extension to the Turing Test. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Australasian cognitive science society, University of Newcastle, NSW, AustraliaDowe DL, Hajek AR (1998) A non-behavioural, computational extension to the Turing test. In: International conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications (ICCIMAâ98), Gippsland, Australia, pp 101â106Dowe DL, HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2012) IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence 40(2):77â81Dowe DL, HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2014) How universal can an intelligence test be? Adapt Behav 22(1):51â69Drummond C (2009) Replicability is not reproducibility: nor is it good science. In: Proceedings of the evaluation methods for machine learning workshop at the 26th ICML, Montreal, CanadaDrummond C, Japkowicz N (2010) Warning: statistical benchmarking is addictive. Kicking the habit in machine learning. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 22(1):67â80Duan Y, Chen X, Houthooft R, Schulman J, Abbeel P (2016) Benchmarking deep reinforcement learning for continuous control. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06778Eden AH, Moor JH, Soraker JH, Steinhart E (2013) Singularity hypotheses: a scientific and philosophical assessment. Springer, New YorkEdmondson W (2012) The intelligence in ETIâwhat can we know? Acta Astronaut 78:37â42Elo AE (1978) The rating of chessplayers, past and present, vol 3. Batsford, LondonEmbretson SE, Reise SP (2000) Item response theory for psychologists. L. Erlbaum, HillsdaleEvans JM, Messina ER (2001) Performance metrics for intelligent systems. NIST Special Publication SP, pp 101â104Everitt T, Lattimore T, Hutter M (2014) Free lunch for optimisation under the universal distribution. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), IEEE, pp 167â174Falkenauer E (1998) On method overfitting. J Heuristics 4(3):281â287Feldman J (2003) Simplicity and complexity in human concept learning. Gen Psychol 38(1):9â15Ferrando PJ (2009) Difficulty, discrimination, and information indices in the linear factor analysis model for continuous item responses. Appl Psychol Meas 33(1):9â24Ferrando PJ (2012) Assessing the discriminating power of item and test scores in the linear factor-analysis model. PsicolĂłgica 33:111â139Ferri C, HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Modroiu R (2009) An experimental comparison of performance measures for classification. Pattern Recogn Lett 30(1):27â38Ferrucci D, Brown E, Chu-Carroll J, Fan J, Gondek D, Kalyanpur AA, Lally A, Murdock J, Nyberg E, Prager J et al (2010) Building Watson: an overview of the DeepQA project. AI Mag 31(3):59â79Fogel DB (1991) The evolution of intelligent decision making in gaming. Cybern Syst 22(2):223â236Gaschnig J, Klahr P, Pople H, Shortliffe E, Terry A (1983) Evaluation of expert systems: issues and case studies. Build Exp Syst 1:241â278Geissman JR, Schultz RD (1988) Verification & validation. AI Exp 3(2):26â33Genesereth M, Love N, Pell B (2005) General game playing: overview of the AAAI competition. AI Mag 26(2):62GerĂłnimo D, LĂłpez AM (2014) Datasets and benchmarking. In: Vision-based pedestrian protection systems for intelligent vehicles. Springer, pp 87â93Goertzel B, Pennachin C (eds) (2007) Artificial general intelligence. Springer, New YorkGoertzel B, Arel I, Scheutz M (2009) Toward a roadmap for human-level artificial general intelligence: embedding HLAI systems in broad, approachable, physical or virtual contexts. Artif Gen Intell Roadmap InitiatGoldreich O, Vadhan S (2007) Special issue on worst-case versus average-case complexity editorsâ foreword. Comput complex 16(4):325â330Gordon BB (2007) Report on panel discussion on (re-)establishing or increasing collaborative links between artificial intelligence and intelligent systems. In: Messina ER, Madhavan R (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on performance metrics for intelligent systems, pp 302â303Gulwani S, HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Kitzelmann E, Muggleton SH, Schmid U, Zorn B (2015) Inductive programming meets the real world. Commun ACM 58(11):90â99Hand DJ (2004) Measurement theory and practice. A Hodder Arnold Publication, LondonHernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2000a) Beyond the Turing test. J Logic Lang Inf 9(4):447â466HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2000b) On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In: Meystel A (ed) Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, pp 1â8HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2000c) Thesis: computational measures of information gain and reinforcement in inference processes. AI Commun 13(1):49â50HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2010) A (hopefully) non-biased universal environment class for measuring intelligence of biological and artificial systems. In: Artificial general intelligence, 3rd International Conference. Atlantis Press, Extended report at http://users.dsic.upv.es/proy/anynt/unbiased.pdf , pp 182â183HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2014) On environment difficulty and discriminating power. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 29(3):402â454. doi: 10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Dowe DL (2010) Measuring universal intelligence: towards an anytime intelligence test. Artif Intell 174(18):1508â1539HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Dowe DL (2013) On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Minds Mach 23:179â210HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Minaya-Collado N (1998) A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In: Proceedings of international symposium of engineering of intelligent systems (EISâ98), ICSC Press, pp 146â163HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Dowe DL, España-Cubillo S, HernĂĄndez-Lloreda MV, Insa-Cabrera J (2011) On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In: Schmidhuber J, ThĂłrisson K, Looks M (eds) Artificial general intelligence, LNAI, vol 6830. Springer, New York, pp 82â91HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Flach P, Ferri C (2012a) A unified view of performance metrics: translating threshold choice into expected classification loss. J Mach Learn Res 13(1):2813â2869HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Insa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, Hibbard B (2012b) Turing Tests with Turing machines. In: Voronkov A (ed) Turing-100, EPiC Series, vol 10, pp 140â156HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, Dowe DL, HernĂĄndez-Lloreda MV (2014) Universal psychometrics: measuring cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Cogn Syst Res 27:50â74HernĂĄndez-Orallo J, MartĂnez-Plumed F, Schmid U, Siebers M, Dowe DL (2016) Computer models solving intelligence test problems: progress and implications. Artif Intell 230:74â107Herrmann E, Call J, HernĂĄndez-Lloreda MV, Hare B, Tomasello M (2007) Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science 317(5843):1360â1366Hibbard B (2009) Bias and no free lunch in formal measures of intelligence. J Artif Gen Intell 1(1):54â61Hingston P (2010) A new design for a Turing Test for bots. In: 2010 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and games (CIG), IEEE, pp 345â350Hingston P (2012) Believable bots: can computers play like people?. Springer, New YorkHo TK, Basu M (2002) Complexity measures of supervised classification problems. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(3):289â300Hutter M (2007) Universal algorithmic intelligence: a mathematical top â down approach. In: Goertzel B, Pennachin C (eds) Artificial general intelligence, cognitive technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 227â290Igel C, Toussaint M (2005) A no-free-lunch theorem for non-uniform distributions of target functions. J Math Model Algorithms 3(4):313â322Insa-Cabrera J (2016) Towards a universal test of social intelligence. Ph.D. thesis, Departament de Sistemes InformĂĄtics i ComputaciĂł, UPVInsa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, España-Cubillo S, HernĂĄndez-Lloreda MV, HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2011a) Comparing humans and ai agents. In: Schmidhuber J, ThĂłrisson K, Looks M (eds) Artificial general intelligence, LNAI, vol 6830. Springer, New York, pp 122â132Insa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2011) Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test. In: Lozano JA, Gamez JM (eds) Current topics in artificial intelligence. CAEPIA 2011, LNAI series 7023. Springer, New YorkInsa-Cabrera J, Benacloch-Ayuso JL, HernĂĄndez-Orallo J (2012) On measuring social intelligence: experiments on competition and cooperation. In: Bach J, Goertzel B, IklĂ© M (eds) AGI, lecture notes in computer science, vol 7716. Springer, New York, pp 126â135Jacoff A, Messina E, Weiss BA, Tadokoro S, Nakagawa Y (2003) Test arenas and performance metrics for urban search and rescue robots. In: Proceedings of 2003 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2003 (IROS 2003), IEEE, vol 4, pp 3396â3403Japkowicz N, Shah M (2011) Evaluating learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeJiang J (2008) A literature survey on domain adaptation of statistical classifiers. http://sifaka.cs.uiuc.edu/jiang4/domain_adaptation/surveyJohnson M, Hofmann K, Hutton T, Bignell D (2016) The Malmo platform for artificial intelligence experimentation. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI)Keith TZ, Reynolds MR (2010) CattellâHornâCarroll abilities and cognitive tests: what weâve learned from 20 years of research. Psychol Schools 47(7):635â650Ketter W, Symeonidis A (2012) Competitive benchmarking: lessons learned from the trading agent competition. AI Mag 33(2):103Khreich W, Granger E, Miri A, Sabourin R (2012) A survey of techniques for incremental learning of HMM parameters. Inf Sci 197:105â130Kim JH (2004) Soccer robotics, vol 11. Springer, New YorkKitano H, Asada M, Kuniyoshi Y, Noda I, Osawa E (1997) Robocup: the robot world cup initiative. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents, ACM, pp 340â347Kleiner K (2011) Who are you calling bird-brained? An attempt is being made to devise a universal intelligence test. Economist 398(8723, 5 March 2011):82Knuth DE (1973) Sorting and searching, volume 3 of the art of computer programming. Addison-Wesley, ReadingKoza JR (2010) Human-competitive results produced by genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 11(3â4):251â284Krueger J, Osherson D (1980) On the psychology of structural simplicity. In: Jusczyk PW, Klein RM (eds) The nature of thought: essays in honor of D. O. Hebb. Psychology Press, London, pp 187â205Langford J (2005) Clever methods of overfitting. Machine Learning (Theory). http://hunch.netLangley P (1987) Research papers in machine learning. Mach Learn 2(3):195â198Langley P (2011) The changing science of machine learning. Mach Learn 82(3):275â279Langley P (2012) The cognitive systems paradigm. Adv Cogn Syst 1:3â13Lattimore T, Hutter M (2013) No free lunch versus Occamâs razor in supervised learning. Algorithmic Probability and Friends. Springer, Bayesian Prediction and Artificial Intelligence, pp 223â235Leeuwenberg ELJ, Van Der Helm PA (2012) Structural information theory: the simplicity of visual form. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeLegg S, Hutter M (2007a) Tests of machine intelligence. In: Lungarella M, Iida F, Bongard J, Pfeifer R (eds) 50 Years of Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4850, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 232â242. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-77296-5_22Legg S, Hutter M (2007b) Universal intelligence: a definition of machine intelligence. Minds Mach 17(4):391â444Legg S, Veness J (2013) An approximation of the universal intelligence measure. Algorithmic Probability and Friends. Springer, Bayesian Prediction and Artificial Intelligence, pp 236â249Levesque HJ (2014) On our best behaviour. Artif Intell 212:27â35Levesque HJ, Davis E, Morgenstern L (2012) The winog
Characteristics of Adults in the Hepatitis B Research Network in North America Reflect Their Country of Origin and Hepatitis B Virus Genotype
Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is an important cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma worldwide; populations that migrate to the US and Canada might be disproportionately affected. The Hepatitis B Research Network (HBRN) is a cooperative network of investigators from the United States and Canada, created to facilitate clinical, therapeutic, and translational research in adults and children with hepatitis B. We describe the structure of the network and baseline characteristics of adults with hepatitis B enrolled in the network
31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two
Background
The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd.
Methods
We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background.
Results
First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001).
Conclusions
In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival
Observation of gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 2.5â4.5 Mâ compact object and a neutron star
Laryngeal muscle responses to mechanical displacement of the thyroid cartilage in humans
Presymptomatic Lesion in Childhood Cerebral Adrenoleukodystrophy: Timing and Treatment
Background and ObjectivesWe sought to characterize the natural history and standard-of-care practices between the radiologic appearance of brain lesions, the appearance of lesional enhancement, and treatment with hematopoietic stem-cell transplant or gene therapy among boys diagnosed with presymptomatic childhood-onset cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy (CCALD).MethodsWe analyzed a multicenter, mixed retrospective/prospective cohort of patients diagnosed with presymptomatic CCALD (Neurologic Function Score = 0, Loes Score [LS] = 0.5-9.0, and age <13 years). Two time-to-event survival analyses were conducted: (1) time from CCALD lesion onset-to-lesional enhancement and (2) time from enhancement-to-treatment. The analysis was repeated in the subset of patients with (1) the earliest evidence of CCALD, defined as an MRI LS †1, and (2) patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2021.ResultsSeventy-one boys were diagnosed with presymptomatic cerebral lesions at a median age of 6.4 years [2.4-12.1] with a LS of 1.5 [0.5-9.0]. Fifty percent of patients had lesional enhancement at diagnosis. In the remaining 50%, the median Kaplan-Meier (KM)-estimate of time from diagnosis-to-lesional enhancement was 6.0 months (95% CI 3.6-17.8). The median KM-estimate of time from enhancement-to-treatment is 3.8 months (95% CI 2.8-5.9); 2 patients (4.2%) developed symptoms before treatment. Patients with a diagnostic LS †1 were younger (5.8 years [2.4-11.5]), had a time-to-enhancement of 4.7 months (95% CI 2.7-9.30), and were treated in 3.8 months (95% CI 3.1-7.1); no patients developed symptoms before treatment. Time from CCALD diagnosis-to-treatment decreased over the course of the study (Ï =-0.401, p = 0.003).DiscussionOur findings offer a more refined understanding of the timing of lesion formation, enhancement, and treatment among boys with presymptomatic CCALD. These data offer benchmarks for standardizing clinical care and designing future clinical trials
Expected and reported division of responsibility of household tasks among older wives in two residential settings
- âŠ