MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095126211 · doi:10.1097/nen.0b013e31825243ae

Acute Rejection of Myofibers in Nonhuman Primates: Key Histopathologic Features

2012· article· en· W2095126211 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Skuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunosuppressionTransplantationContext (archaeology)PathologyBiopsyTacrolimusBiologyCD8MedicineImmunologyImmune systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to define the histologic features of acute rejection of myofibers, particularly in the context of therapeutic myogenic cell transplantation. Myoblasts expressing or not expressing β-galactosidase were transplanted into 13 macaques that were divided into 3 protocols: withdrawal of immunosuppression, low immunosuppression, and progressive reduction of immunosuppression. The biopsy samples were obtained from cell-grafted sites at different intervals, and cryostat sections of biopsies were analyzed. The grafts were lost in all the monkeys at different periods after transplantation depending on the protocol and in association with low blood levels of tacrolimus. In all cases, graft loss was associated with the presence of dense focal accumulations of CD8-positive and CD4-positive lymphocytes and a component of macrophages. The lymphocyte accumulations totally or partially surrounded some myofibers and often invaded them; they were mainly endomysial. These histopathologic patterns in nonhuman primates and their similarity with preliminary observations in humans may facilitate the translation of these results to the histologic diagnosis of acute rejection of myofibers in human clinical trials of myogenic cell transplantation and probably gene therapy.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental NeurologySame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207