Improvement in β-Cell Secretory Capacity After Human Islet Transplantation According to the CIT07 Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Clinical Islet Transplantation 07 (CIT07) protocol uses antithymocyte globulin and etanercept induction, islet culture, heparinization, and intensive insulin therapy with the same low-dose tacrolimus and sirolimus maintenance immunosuppression as in the Edmonton protocol. To determine whether CIT07 improves engrafted islet β-cell mass, our center measured β-cell secretory capacity from glucose-potentiated arginine tests at days 75 and 365 after transplantation and compared those results with the results previously achieved by our group using the Edmonton protocol and normal subjects. All subjects were insulin free, with CIT07 subjects receiving fewer islet equivalents from a median of one donor compared with two donors for Edmonton protocol subjects. The acute insulin response to glucose-potentiated arginine (AIRpot) was greater in the CIT07 protocol than in the Edmonton protocol and was less in both cohorts than in normal subjects, with similar findings for C-peptide. The CIT07 subjects who completed reassessment at day 365 exhibited increasing AIRpot by trend relative to that of day 75. These data indicate that engrafted islet β-cell mass is markedly improved with the CIT07 protocol, especially given more frequent use of single islet donors. Although several peritransplant differences may have each contributed to this improvement, the lack of deterioration in β-cell secretory capacity over time in the CIT07 protocol suggests that low-dose tacrolimus and sirolimus are not toxic to islets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".