MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1947207670 · doi:10.1002/dmrr.2484

Islet transplantation in type 1 diabetes: hype, hope and reality – a clinician's perspective

2013· review· en· W1947207670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adar Zinger, Gil Leibowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransplantationIsletMedicineType 1 diabetesIntensive care medicineDiabetes mellitusIslet cell transplantationInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The β-cell replacement by islet transplantation is an attractive approach for normalizing blood glucose without hypoglycaemia in patient with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). A pioneer study by the Edmonton group more than a decade ago showed that alloislet transplantation may result in insulin independence for at least 1 year after transplantation. This breakthrough excited researchers, physicians and patients, who felt that the ultimate goal of cure for T1D was at hand. Longer follow-up of patients who underwent islet transplantation showed less favourable results, with only approximately 10% of the patients remaining insulin-free 5 years after transplantation. In the last few years, progress has been made, and the success rate of islet transplantation has steadily increased. Important hurdles, however, related to limited tissue supply and need for life-long immunosuppressive drugs have yet to be overcome. Herein, we review recent achievements in islet transplantation and the challenges that still need to be addressed before this procedure can become a standard therapy for T1D.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes/Metabolism Research and ReviewsSame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207