MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413383327

Lack of susceptibility to ischemic necrosis of the remnant liver following partial hepatectomy in the rat.

2007· article· en· W2413383327 on OpenAlexaff
Kym Watt, K. Kives, Ian R. Corbin, M. Zhang, Gerald Y. Minuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatectomyShock (circulatory)MedicineLiver injuryHemorrhagic shockIschemic injuryNecrosisInternal medicinePathologyPhysiologyIschemiaSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The increase in liver lobule dimensions that occurs following partial hepatectomy could predispose living related donors to ischemic hepatic injury were shock-like states to occur in the future. METHODOLOGY: In the present study, rats that had undergone 70% partial hepatectomies or sham surgery six weeks earlier were progressively bled to a maximum of 40% total circulating blood volume. RESULTS: Despite significant increases in liver lobule dimensions (1.5x controls), hepatectomized rats did not manifest biochemical or histologic evidence of early or more extensive hepatic injury when compared to sham-operated controls. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that despite theoretical concerns, living related donors are not predisposed to develop ischemic hepatic injury were shock-like states to develop in the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207