Efficacy of Human Islet Isolation From the Tail Section of the Pancreas for the Possibility of Living Donor Islet Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Islet transplantation is on the rise for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Apparent donor shortages could be alleviated through use of living donor pancreata. A critical issue for using a section of pancreas from living donors is whether islet yields would be sufficient for transplantation. METHODS: After obtaining human pancreata, islets were isolated from the head section (n=20, head group), tail section (n=23, tail group) or whole pancreas (n=24, whole group). Islets were isolated by enzymatic digestion followed by purification, then assessed for yields, purity, morphology, functionality, and insulin content. RESULTS: Fifteen of twenty cases (75%) in the head group, all cases (100%) in the tail group, and 23 of 24 cases (96%) in the whole group were successfully completed for islet isolation. Islet yield per gram pancreas was significantly higher in the tail group compared with both the head and whole groups (head, 1,472+/-326 IE/g; tail, 4,256+/-574 IE/g; whole, 2,424+/-506 IE/g). Total islet yield from the head group was significantly lower compared with both tail and whole groups (head, 75,016+/-18,933 IE; tail, 197,469+/-28,236 IE; whole, 208,207+/-43,414 IE), and the tail group showed similar islet yield to the whole group. The whole group showed significantly lower purities and the head group showed significantly lower morphologic scores. There were no significant differences in viability, function, and insulin content among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The tail section of the human pancreas is suitable for islet isolation. The living donor islet transplantation may be feasible using only this section of the pancreas for the first transplantation to reduce hypoglycemic unawareness for small recipients, which might be followed by the second islet transplantation from cadaveric donor.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".