Laryngeal transplantation in minipigs: early immunological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recent tissue-engineering advances, there is no effective way of replacing all the functions of the larynx in those requiring laryngectomy. A recent clinical transplant was a success. Using quantitative immunofluorescence targeted at immunologically relevant molecules, we have studied the early (48 h and 1 week) immunological responses within larynxes transplantated between seven pairs of National Institutes of Health (NIH) minipigs fully homozygous at the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) locus. There were only small changes in expression of some molecules (relative to interindividual variation) and these were clearest in samples from the subglottic region, where the areas of co-expression of CD25(+) CD45RC(-) CD8(-) and of CD163(+) CD172(+) MHC-II(-) increased at 1 week after transplant. In one case, infiltration by recipient T cells was analysed by T cell receptor (TCR) Vβ spectratype analysis; this suggested that changes in the T cell repertoire occur in the donor subglottis mucosal tissues from day 0 to day 7, but that the donor and recipient mucosal Vβ repertoires remain distinct. The observed lack of strong immunological responses to the trauma of surgery and ischaemia provides encouraging evidence to support clinical trials of laryngeal transplantation, and a basis on which to interpret future studies involving mismatches.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".