MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Defining the Role of a Tailored Luminal Solution for Small Bowel Preservation

2002· article· en· W2062906915 on OpenAlexafffund
Yasuhiro Fujimoto, David Olson, Karen Madsen, Janice Zeng, Laurence D. Jewell, Norman M. Kneteman, David L. Bigam, Thomas A. Churchill

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEdmonton Civic Employees Charitable Assistance FundCanadian Association of Gastroenterology
KeywordsMedicineBarrier functionGlutamineAmino acidViaspanHistologyInternal medicineGastroenterologyTransplantationBiochemistryChemistryBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mucosal layer is the initial site of small bowel (SB) graft injury sustained during cold storage. Vascular administration of preservation solutions alone is unable to prevent ischemic injury of this layer during clinically relevant storage periods. The SB is unique in that it possesses both a vascular and a luminal route by which preservation solutions can be administered. We hypothesized that addition of a luminal-delivered solution, formulated on amino acid requirements for energy- and non-energy-related reactions, would provide site-specific preservation of mucosal energetics, barrier function and morphology throughout an extended period of cold storage. Of the three luminal solutions containing amino acids which were tested (UWG, AA1, AA2), only the two groups (AA1, AA2), containing glutamine plus 18 other amino acids, +/- osmotic agent (lactobionate) and buffer (BES), exhibited significant improvements in energetics, barrier function, and histology compared to the clinical standard of isolated vascular University of Wisconsin (UW) solution. Although the AA1 and AA2 groups preserved barrier function and morphology up to 24h better than all other solutions tested, AA2 proved to be the only luminal solution with values of permeability, conductance, and short-circuit current not significantly different from freshly isolated tissues. Furthermore, the greatest reduction in histologic injury was effected by AA2 treatment (median grade 2 compared to control, UW(v), grade 8). This study documents that a luminal-delivered solution, formulated on physiologic SB requirements, provides targeted preservation of the SB mucosa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207