Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Machine perfusion is a novel strategy to decrease preservation injury, improve graft assessment, and increase organ acceptance for transplantation. This review summarizes the current advances in ex-vivo machine-based kidney preservation technologies over the last year. RECENT FINDINGS: Ex-vivo perfusion technologies, such as hypothermic and normothermic machine perfusion and controlled oxygenated rewarming, have gained high interest in the field of organ preservation. Keeping kidney grafts functionally and metabolically active during the preservation period offers a unique chance for viability assessment, reconditioning, and organ repair. Normothermic ex-vivo kidney perfusion has been recently translated into clinical practice. Preclinical results suggest that prolonged warm perfusion appears superior than a brief end-ischemic reconditioning in terms of renal function and injury. An established standardized protocol for continuous warm perfusion is still not available for human grafts. SUMMARY: Ex-vivo machine perfusion represents a superior organ preservation method over static cold storage. There is still an urgent need for the optimization of the perfusion fluid and machine technology and to identify the optimal indication in kidney transplantation. Recent research is focusing on graft assessment and therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".