Avoiding Immunosuppression for Islet Transplantation: Use of Protective Biomaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Islet transplantation, with the advent of the Edmonton protocol in 2000, has offered a significant alternative for long-lasting treatment of type 1 diabetes. However, the immunosuppression required for transplantation has the cytotoxic effect on pancreatic islets, and thus limiting the long-term efficacy of the transplant. Immediate loss of islets after transplant was also observed because of immediate blood-mediated inflammatory response (IBMIR), which kills islets transplanted in the liver through portal vein. There is also commonly a lack of microvascular blood supply to the transplanted islets. In this chapter, we will review the variety of technologies used to protect transplanted islets against toxicity of immunosuppression, immune rejection, and inflammatory response. We will evaluate the mechanisms of these technologies and their progress in solving the challenges to islet transplantation. The technologies include encapsulation of transplanted islets in various polymers, transplants in sites other than the liver, and creation of new prevascularized transplant site. These technologies offer several mechanisms to prevent immune rejection or immediate contact with cytotoxic inflammatory response, in addition to maintaining islet integrity. New transplant sites are also being developed to support the islets, by allowing establishment of microvasculature and innervation, prior to addition of the 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".