MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070360911 · doi:10.1155/2008/562985

Amyloid Deposition in Transplanted Human Pancreatic Islets: A Conceivable Cause of Their Long‐Term Failure

2008· review· en· W2070360911 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arne Andersson, Sara Bohman, Lisa Borg, Johan F. Paulsson, Sebastian W. Schultz, Gunilla T. Westermark, Per Westermark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Research · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVetenskapsrådetLänsstyrelsen ÖstergötlandJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International
KeywordsIsletTransplantationAmyloid (mycology)Pancreatic isletsTerm (time)Genetically modified mouseNeuroscienceMedicineInsulinTransgeneEndocrinologyBiologyInternal medicinePathologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the encouraging report of the Edmonton group, there was a rejuvenation of the islet transplantation field. After that, more pessimistic views spread when long-term results of the clinical outcome were published. A progressive loss of the beta-cell function meant that almost all patients were back on insulin therapy after 5 years. More than 10 years ago, we demonstrated that amyloid deposits rapidly formed in human islets and in mouse islets transgenic for human IAPP when grafted into nude mice. It is, therefore, conceivable to consider amyloid formation as one potential candidate for the long-term failure. The present paper reviews attempts in our laboratories to elucidate the dynamics of and mechanisms behind the formation of amyloid in transplanted islets with special emphasis on the impact of long-term hyperglycemia.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes ResearchSame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207