Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons Société Canadienne des Chirurgiens Plasticiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To demonstrate that transplant tolerance is donor specific and to illustrate the mechanisms whereby this might occur.METHODS: All limb transplants were from C57BL/6 to BALB/c mice and all received 14 days of monoclonalAB, LF, and rapamycin.Group 1 (n=11) received drugs alone.In Group 2 (n=3), graft bone marrow (BM) was eradicated prior to transplantation using 750 cGy γ-irradiation.Recipients were sacrificed if demonstrating signs of rejection or >day 100 post-transplantation when they were deemed to be tolerant.Donor specific tolerance was assessed by skin grafting with grafts from C57BL/6 and third-party (C3H) mice.Flow cytometry was used to detect donor cell chimerism in limb recipients, repopulation of recipient cells in the graft BM, and serum anti-donor antibodies in recipients.RESULTS: Mean survival time in Group 1 was >100 days.In the radiated group, mean survival was 17 days (p<0.05vs group 1) suggesting that donor bone marrow cells are important for inducing recipient immune hyporesponsiveness.Long-term allograft survivors demonstrated a time-dependent increase in donor cell chimerism as well as low anti-donor antibodies in the serum and in the graft, suggesting that B lymphocyte activity was downregulated.Significant levels of recipient B, T and myeloid cells were found to have re-populated graft BM.In long-term survivors, skin grafts from donor strain mice were accepted whereas grafts from a third strain were rejected demonstrating that tolerance is donor specific.CONCLUSIONS: In this model, induction of tolerance appears to be dependent upon intact donor bone marrow cells.Tolerance is associated with re-population of the grafted bone marrow with recipient cells and low levels of anti-donor antibodies.This may suggest that tolerance is achieved by down-regulating B lymphocyte activity in recipients.LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Participants will learn that transplant survival without long-term immunosuppression is possible and the possible mechanisms by which it occurs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.155 | 0.025 |
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".