Portal Venous and Enteric Exocrine Drainage Versus Systemic Venous and Bladder Exocrine Drainage of Pancreas Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that pancreas transplantation using the more physiologic method of portal venous-enteric (PE) drainage could be performed without compromising patient and graft outcome, compared with the standard method of systemic venous-bladder (SB) drainage. METHODS: Between November 1995 and November 1998, the authors prospectively followed up 20 consecutive patients with SB drainage followed by 20 consecutive patients with PE drainage. All patients underwent simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation, and all were immunosuppressed with antilymphocyte serum, cyclosporin, azathioprine, and steroids. RESULTS: The actuarial patient survival rate at 1 year was 95% in the SB group and 100% in the PE group. Death-censored kidney graft survival was 100% in both groups; pancreas graft survival was 95% in the SB group and 100% in the PE group. The mean initial hospital stay was 15 days for both groups. However, during the first 6 months after transplantation, the SB group required more medical day-unit visits, mostly for treatment of metabolic acidosis and dehydration. The incidence of urinary tract infections was similar in both groups. The incidence of cytomegalovirus infections was significantly less in the PE group. The incidence of acute rejection was 37% in the SB group and 15% in the PE group. Mean serum creatinine levels 6 months after transplantation were significantly lower in the PE group than in the SB group. Glycemic control was excellent in both groups, but fasting serum insulin levels were significantly lower in the PE group. CONCLUSIONS: The PE method of pancreas transplantation can be performed with excellent patient and graft outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".