Hepatocyte buds derived from progenitor cells repopulate regions of parenchymal extinction in human cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Repair of cirrhotic livers occurs, in part, by repopulation with hepatocytes through the stem/progenitor pathway. There remain many uncertainties regarding this pathway. Hepatocyte "buds" occurring in broad septa are hypothesized to be the anatomic manifestation of this pathway. Our purpose was to define a morphologic sequence of bud maturation to allow a quantitative measure of the importance of the stem/progenitor pathway in humans. Histologic sections from 37 liver resection specimens were stained with trichrome, epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), K19, CD34, glutamine synthetase (GS), and Ki-67. Specimens were stratified by etiology (10 biliary, 22 nonbiliary, five controls) and stage. Buds were defined as clusters of hepatocytes within septa. Five levels of bud maturation (0-4) were defined by the progressive increase in hepatocyte progeny relative to cholangiocytes. Level 0 single-cell buds are K19(+) /GS(+) /EpCAM(+) /Heppar1(-) . In level 1, the progeny are morphologically hepatocytes (K19(-) /GS(+) /EpCAM(+) /Heppar1(+) ). In level 2-4 buds, hepatocytes increase and become progressively GS(-) and EpCAM(-) . Associated endothelium is CD34(+) in level 1-2 buds and becomes CD34(-) near hepatic veins in level 3-4 buds. Progeny of the bud sequence may represent up to 70% of hepatocytes (immaturity index of 70%). In biliary disease, bud number is reduced in association with duct loss and cholestatic destruction of nascent buds. CONCLUSIONS: The stem/progenitor pathway, manifested anatomically by the bud sequence, is a major mechanism for repopulation of cirrhotic livers. The bud sequence reveals some critical features of hepatic morphogenesis, including that 1) the majority of distal cholangiocytes have stem-like properties, and 2) availability of bile ducts and/or venous drainage are limiting factors for regeneration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".