The Use of an Approved Biodegradable Polymer Scaffold as a Solid Support System for Improvement of Islet Engraftment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of a medically approved biodegradable scaffold as a solid support system would enhance graft survival following transplantation into the omental pouch in a preclinical large animal model. Six beagle dogs underwent total pancreatectomy followed by islet autotransplantation into the omental pouch. Four dogs received islets seeded in a biodegradable polymer scaffold and two received free islets without a scaffold. All four animals that received islets in the scaffold became normoglycemic without exogeneous insulin injection. One dog, transplanted with the largest number of islets, maintained a normal metabolic state until the graft was removed at 5 months posttransplant. In two out of the three that received a marginal islet mass, insulin independence was sustained up to 2 months. In contrast, two dogs transplanted with a similar marginal mass without the scaffold never became normoglycemic. Histological examination of the grafts in the scaffold showed numerous well-granulated, insulin-containing cells as well as glucagon-positive cells. These results indicate that biodegradable scaffolds may enhance survival and function of islet grafts. Manipulation of the microenvironment of transplanted islets may constitute the basis for new approaches to enhance islet engraftment.
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".