MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122298774 · doi:10.1081/bio-120025408

Bioartificial Organ Grafts: A View at the Beginning of the Third Millennium

2003· review· en· W2122298774 on OpenAlexaff
David Hunkeler, R. V. Rajotte, D. R. Grey, P. Morel, G. Skjak‐Break, Gregory S. Korbutt, Ronald G. Gill, José Oberholzer

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Cells Blood Substitutes and Biotechnology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXenotransplantationImmune privilegeImmunosuppressionMedicineOrgan transplantationCell encapsulationTransplantationImmune systemDe factoIntensive care medicineImmunologyTissue engineeringSurgeryBiomedical engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An immunoisolated collection of cells, which communicate and exchange essential factors, co-stimulatory hormones, as well as providing immunoprotection and immunomodulation, can be prepared, given existing scientific and medical know-how, within two decades. These "Bioartificial Organ Grafts" have advantages relative to isolated cell therapies, including beta-cell encapsulation for diabetes treatment, and xenotransplantation, which has a de facto moratorium. This paper documents that the majority of the research for the bioartificial organ grafts has been concluded, with the remaining hurdles minimum in comparison. The use of co-encapsulation and the induction of local immune-privilege will provide a more sensitive humoral hormonal response and graft survival, without systemic immunosuppression. A call for the staged implementation of bioartificial organ grafts, based on the best available medical practice, materials, tissue and technology available, is advocated. The implementation of bioartificial organ grafts can begin within the next two years, based on allografts succeeded by genetically modified human tissue, without the need to pass through a xenograft stage.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Cells Blood Substitutes and BiotechnologySame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207