MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2167655715 · doi:10.7599/hmr.2014.34.4.173

Recent Progress in Clinical Islet Transplantation

2014· article· en· W2167655715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jae Berm Park, Sung Joo Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueHanyang Medical Reviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransplantationIsletMedicineDiabetes mellitusIntensive care medicineType 1 diabetesIslet cell transplantationInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allo-islet transplantation is believed to be a promising treatment for normalizing blood glucose levels without hypoglycemic episodes in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). In 2000, a pioneering study by the Edmonton group showed that allo-islet transplantation could achieve insulin independence for at least 1 year post-transplantation in all seven consecutive patients. This breakthrough study excited numerous researchers, clinicians, and patients. Although longer follow-up studies did not have the same success as the first study, substantial efforts to establish successful islet transplantation have been made in the last decade. Several leading centers of islet transplantation have reported success rates of nearly 50% insulin independence at 5 years post-transplantation. However, recent advancements in transplant outcomes are limited to only a few centers and select patients; thus, we are still confronted with numerous hurdles against long-term successful islet transplantation. Herein, we review the recent advances and challenges for allo-islet transplantation to be accepted as a standard therapy for patients with T1DM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHanyang Medical Reviews→Same topicPancreatic function and diabetes→French-language works237,207→