Control of microbial contamination during surgical harvest of pig renal xenografts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pig has been identified as the most likely source of xenograft material for clinical use and studies are ongoing to overcome the immunological hurdles of pig-to-human transplantation. Attention is now being focussed on identifying and reducing the potential microbiological hazards associated with this technique. Studies have primarily addressed issues surrounding the production and health monitoring of xenograft source pigs and none have so far specifically evaluated the possible risks of microbial contamination during xenograft harvest. In this report, we evaluate the possible routes for contamination of a pig kidney xenograft during organ harvest and describe approaches to the control of these hazards, including the novel use of a custom designed airtight surgical canopy. A standard procedure for microbiological monitoring during xenograft harvest was devised and evaluated. This allowed the rapid identification and anti-microbial sensitivity testing of any isolated organisms. This would enable an early and appropriate pre-emptive treatment of infection because of transmission of pig micro-organisms.
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".