The production of transgenic pigs for potential use in clinical xenotransplantation: microbiological evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debate over the infection hazards of pig-to-human xenotransplantation has focused mainly on the porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERV). However, hazards of exogenous infectious agents possibly associated with the xenograft have also been evaluated (Xenotransplantation 2000; 7: 143). We report the results of a health monitoring program demonstrating the exclusion of more than 80 potential pathogens from nine cohorts of pigs reared in a high welfare bioexclusion facility as potential xenograft source animals. A dynamic bacterial flora of pigs reared under barrier conditions was characterized, emphasizing the significance of monitoring for multiresistant antimicrobial sensitivity patterns. Evidence was found for exclusion of two commonly residual exogenous viruses, porcine cytomegalovirus and porcine lymphotropic herpesviruses, among a proportion of the cohorts tested. Finally, there was histopathological evidence for low grade pneumonitis among sentinel pigs, likely to have been associated with the use of quaternary ammonium disinfectants during the production process, indicating a need for review of toxicology data for disinfectant agents used in such bioexclusion systems. Intensive health monitoring programs, based upon regularly updated recommendations from the microbiological research community, will enable significant reductions in the potential hazards associated with pig-to-human xenotransplantation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".