MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993833421 · doi:10.1002/lt.22177

Factors affecting hepatocyte isolation, engraftment, and replication in an in vivo model

2010· letter· en· W1993833421 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatocyteMedicineCirrhosisLiver transplantationTransplantationLiver diseasePrimary biliary cirrhosisPathologyIsolation (microbiology)GastroenterologyInternal medicineBiologyIn vitroBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We congratulate Kawahara et al.1 on their excellent study published in Liver Transplantation.We read about their experiences with human hepatocyte isolation and the subsequent application of the isolated cells with keen interest. Our group also has good experience with human hepatocyte isolation.2 We have 2 points to raise with respect to this excellent study. The authors used human hepatocytes isolated from resected normal liver tissue in their study (51 cancer specimens and 39 specimens of benign etiology). Our data show that such hepatocytes differ in their response to hypoxia and hypoxia/reoxygenation in comparison with hepatocytes isolated from normal livers.2 Did the authors note any phenotypic differences between hepatocytes isolated from cancer specimens and those isolated from benign livers? Moreover, did this have a bearing on transplant success? Kawahara et al.1 stated that their initial experiences with the isolation of human hepatocytes from cirrhotic livers was poor in terms of viable cell yields and transplant success. In our laboratory, we isolate human hepatocytes from all explanted livers after transplantation (for primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, alcoholic liver cirrhosis, or metabolic liver disease), from donor livers exceeding surgical requirements, and from normal tissue obtained from hepatic resections (for metastatic disease). We do not isolate the hepatocytes of patients with a viral hepatic disease. Although we have not published our results yet, we can state that our overall success rate for attempted human hepatocyte isolation is 54%. Because we use all liver tissue that is available to us, we have viable cell yields of 20,000 to 5,000,000 cells/mL. Therefore, we suggest that cirrhotic livers could be a valuable source of human hepatocytes for experimental use. We concur with Kawahara et al. that human hepatocytes isolated from extended criteria donors are suitable for cell transplantation, but we also stress that human hepatocytes isolated from diseased livers can be a valuable source of cells for functional studies.2 We again congratulate the authors on their excellent work within this challenging area, and we hope that with continuing research in human hepatocyte isolation, clear parameters and protocols can be established so that hepatocytes can be harvested from all available livers. Ricky H. Bhogal M.R.C.S.Ed [email protected]*, Simon C. Afford Ph.D., FRCPath*, * Centre for Liver Research Institute for Biomedical Research University of Birmingham Birmingham, United Kingdom.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207