Is Islet Transplantation a Realistic Therapy for the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes in the Near Future?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IN BRIEF Shapiro and colleagues recently reported a 100% cure rate for type 1 diabetes with their “Edmonton protocol” for islet transplantation. This unprecedented success has caused a groundswell of enthusiasm and an unparalleled effort to replicate their experience. It has also raised questions about the clinical reality of this therapy and sparked a dialog about which patients should benefit from receiving this scarce allocated resource. This article reviews the factors contributing to the Edmonton success and obstacles to immediate and long-term expansion of islet transplantation. The authors argue that use of the two-layered method of pancreas preservation will enable the Edmonton protocol to cure diabetes from single and marginal cadaveric donors. A concerted effort will be required to expedite routing of pancreases to islet processing centers and transplant programs. The long-term success and expansion of islet transplantation will depend on not only safer forms of immunosuppression, but also new sources of islet tissue.
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 | 0.001 | 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".