A pilot study of fat allograft transplantation in immunocompetent rabbits for potential neurosurgical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The authors investigated the feasibility of using fat allografts (chemically treated to reduce the host immune response) for neurosurgical applications. METHODS: Subcutaneous fat specimens collected from New Zealand White rabbits were treated with DNAse I and sodium deoxycholate to reduce immunogenicity before subcutaneous, midscapular implantation in immunocompetent recipient rabbits. Allograft incorporation and the host-allograft response were examined at 1, 6, and 11 weeks by histopathological analysis. Control specimens of autograft and untreated fat allograft implants were examined for comparison. RESULTS: The host immune response was markedly reduced in the region around the chemically treated fat allografts when compared with untreated allografts, and was similar to the tolerant host response to autografts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on their results, the authors suggest that fat allografts processed for reduced immunogenicity may be a convenient, viable alternative for neurosurgical applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".