MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110077613 · doi:10.1517/14712598.2011.536530

Immune monitoring of pancreatic islet graft: towards a better understanding, detection and treatment of harmful events

2010· review· en· W2110077613 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Lacotte, Thierry Berney, AM James Shapiro, Christian Toso

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsletTransplantationImmune systemAutoimmunityImmunologyMedicineTransplant rejectionIntensive care medicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Long-term clinical outcomes of islet transplantation are hampered by rejection and recurrence of autoimmunity, which lead to a gradual decrease in islet function usually taking place over the first five years after transplantation. An accurate monitoring strategy could allow for the detection and treatment of harmful immune events, potentially resulting in higher rates of insulin-independence. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: This article provides a critical review of the various assays currently available for the assessment of allo- and autoimmunity both prior to and after islet transplantation. The accuracy in predicting clinical outcome is specifically addressed. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: Most current tests based on the assessment of allo- and auto-immune antibody are of minimal help in clinical practice. Cell-based tests (including the assessment of cytotoxic T lymphocyte precursors, proliferation tests, enzyme-linked immunospot) have the potential to allow earlier and more accurate detection of harmful events. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A specific and accurate immune monitoring has the potential to significantly improve islet transplant outcomes. The development and use of such tests (favouring cell-based tests) should be promoted.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207