Islet Graft Assessment in the Edmonton Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of the Edmonton Protocol for islet transplantation has provided new hope in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. This study reports on the assessment of 83 human islet grafts transplanted using the Edmonton Protocol since 1999. Cellular composition, as assessed by immunohistochemistry, showed a lower islet purity (approximately 40%) than has been reported in previous studies using dithizone staining to quantitate islet equivalents. Furthermore, grafts were found to contain substantial populations of exocrine and ductal tissue. Total cellular insulin transplanted was 8,097.6 +/- 3,164.4 microg/patient, and was significantly lower in bottom gradient layer grafts than top gradient layer or whole/combined grafts (P < 0.0005). A static incubation test for islet function gave a stimulation index of 3-4, although this measure did not correlate with posttransplant metabolic outcome. Furthermore, we confirmed a previously reported trend in which donor age affects islet yield and purity. It is important to note that a significant positive correlation was observed between the number of islet progenitor (ductal-epithelial) cells transplanted and long-term metabolic success as assessed an by intravenous glucose tolerance test at approximately 2 years posttransplant. In summary, careful assessment of islet graft composition is needed in a clinical transplantation program to accurately estimate islet purity and assess the contribution of other cell types present, such as islet progenitor cells.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".