MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102915416 · doi:10.2337/diabetes.51.7.2148

Successful Islet Transplantation

2002· article· en· W2102915416 on OpenAlexaffabout
Edmond A. Ryan, Jonathan R.T. Lakey, Breay W. Paty, Sharleen Imes, Gregory S. Korbutt, Norman M. Kneteman, David L. Bigam, Ray V. Rajotte, A. M. James Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationSurgeryLiver transplantationGlycemicInsulinThrombosisDiabetes mellitusPortal vein thrombosisIsletGastroenterologyInternal medicineLiver functionEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical islet transplantation is gaining acceptance as a potential therapy, particularly for subjects who have labile diabetes or problems with hypoglycemic awareness. The risks of the procedure and long-term outcomes are still not fully known. We have performed 54 islet transplantation procedures on 30 subjects and have detailed follow-up in 17 consecutive Edmonton protocol-treated subjects who attained insulin independence after transplantation of adequate numbers of islets. Subjects were assessed pretransplant and followed prospectively posttransplant for immediate and long-term complications related to the procedure or immunosuppressive therapy. The 17 patients all became insulin independent after a minimum of 9,000 islets/kg were transplanted. Of 15 consecutive patients with at least 1 year of follow-up after the initial transplant, 12 (80%) were insulin independent at 1 year. In 14 subjects who have maintained demonstrable C-peptide secretion, glucose control has been stable and glycemic lability and problems with hypoglycemic reactions have been corrected. After 2 of the 54 procedures, some thrombosis was detected in the portal vein circulation. Five subjects had bleeding related to the percutaneous portal vein access procedures: three required transfusion alone, and in one subject, who had a partial thrombosis of the portal vein, an expanding intrahepatic and subscapular hemorrhage occurred while on anticoagulation, requiring transfusion and surgery. Elevated liver function test results were found in 46% of subjects but resolved in all. Complications related to the therapy have been hypercholesterolemia requiring statin therapy in 65%; a rise in creatinine in two patients, both of whom had preexisting renal disease; a rise in protein in four, all of whom had preexisting proteinuria; and antihypertensive therapy increased or started in 53%. Three of the 17 patients have required retinal laser photocoagulation. There have been no cases of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder or cytomegalovirus infection, and no deaths. The acute insulin response to arginine correlated better with transplanted islet mass than acute insulin response to glucose (AIR(g)) and area under the curve for insulin (AUC(i)), but the AIR(g) and AUC(i) were more closely related to glycemic control. The AUC(i) directly posttransplant was lower in those who eventually became C-peptide deficient. Our results, with a maximum follow-up of 34 months, indicate that prolonged insulin independence can be achieved after islet transplantation. There are some risks associated acutely with the procedure, and hypercholesterolemia and hypertension are treatable concerns on longer-term follow-up. All patients with persisting C-peptide secretion have had a resolution of both glycemic lability and problems with hypoglycemic reactions. Apart from the rise in serum creatinine in two subjects, no serious consequences of immunosuppressive therapy have been encountered. Islet transplantation is a reasonable option in those with severe problems with glycemic lability or hypoglycemia.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 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

Citations726
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207