Kidney transplantation in rats: An appraisal of surgical techniques and outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renal transplantation in rats is an essential experimental tool in transplantation research. The surgical procedure per se could affect the outcome of an experiment, independent of the hypothesis addressed, therefore requiring a standardized method which should be comparable across studies. To date, however, there is little information on the optimal surgical technique. We performed a Medline search on original articles published between 1965-2001 in order to evaluate whether specific technical issues affecting the outcome of the procedure could be defined. Articles that reported on a novel microsurgical procedure, or whose main purpose was the outcome of a surgical technique itself, were included in the analysis. From 2,060 retrieved publications, 34 corresponded to the selection criteria (rats and microsurgery and technique and kidney or renal transplantation). Among the essential determining factors for a good outcome, body weight >200 g and warm ischemic time <30 min were identified. Other important factors were the techniques used for vascular (end-to-end and end-to-side procedure or sleeve technique) and ureteral (bladder patch or end-to-end procedure) anastomosis. Gender, animal strain, type of anesthesia, prophylactic administration of antibiotics, and type of flushing solution did not affect the success of renal allografts. In order to avoid a bias related to the surgical procedure in rat renal transplantation, a warm ischemia time <30 min in animals with a body weight >200 g seems to be essential. Also, end-to-end or end-to-side vascular anastomoses are preferable to the sleeve technique. Other factors do not influence the immediate function of the graft.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".