1,721,319 research outputs found
Syngeneic antiidiotypic monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) to the murine anti HLA-DR1,4,w6,w8,w9 MoAb AC1.59
No full textImmunotherapeutic approaches with monoclonal antibodies to immunological diseases
No full textThe molecular events triggered by the interaction of the immune system with an antigen and leading to an immune response have been characterized in recent years. This information has provided the background to develop immunotherapeutic approaches to allograft rejection and to autoimmune diseases utilizing monoclonal antibodies to molecules which play a role in the immune response. The clinical trials performed thus far are described. The significance of the results obtained in these trials and the future potential developments are discussed
Syngeneic antiidiotypic monoclonal antibodies to the murine anti HLA-DR1,4,w6,w8,w9 MoAb AC1.59.
No full textSyngeneic anti-idiotipyc monoclonal antibodies that bear the internal image of HLA-DR antigen
No full textDifferential modulation by cytokines of the gene products of the HLA-D region in melanoma cells with different metastatic potential
No full text
Treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis by murine antiidiotypic monoclonal antibodies to syngeneic anti-HLA Class II monoclonal antibodies: preliminary results
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
