MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319642680 · doi:10.1097/med.0b013e328355a2ec

Clinical islet transplantation

2012· review· en· W2319642680 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ronald G. Gill, Nicholas H. Bishop

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Endocrinology Diabetes and Obesity · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsletMedicineTransplantationImmune modulationDiabetes mellitusImmune systemInsulinIntensive care medicineImmunologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The dramatic results of the Edmonton Protocol in 2000 triggered tremendous excitement over the application of pancreatic islet transplantation as a viable approach to achieving consistent insulin independence in type 1 diabetic patients. However, this optimism in the field was tempered by follow-up studies showing frequent attrition of graft function commonly requiring a return to exogenous insulin therapy within 1-3 years after transplant. The purpose of this review is to put these initial studies in perspective and to highlight progress and challenges in this important field. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent clinical and experimental findings demonstrate a progressive improvement in the function and durability of islet allografts. Induction therapies targeting T lymphocytes and costimulatory pathways have been highly effective at promoting islet transplant function. It is also apparent that islet injury associated with metabolic distress provides a nonimmune barrier to islet transplant outcomes. SUMMARY: Newer therapeutic interventions show great promise for attenuating the adaptive immune response to islet allografts. Also, clarifying the mechanisms of metabolic-related tissue distress may provide additional potential targets for improving islet graft outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.012

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Endocrinology Diabetes and ObesitySame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207