MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922101007 · doi:10.1111/wrr.12715

Survival of human cadaver skin on severe combined immune deficiency pigs: Proof of concept

2019· article· en· W2922101007 on OpenAlexaff
Adam J. Singer, Christopher K. Tuggle, A Ahrens, Mary Sauer, Steve A. McClain, Edward E. Tredget, Lior Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Repair and Regeneration · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDermatomeMedicineInflammationCadaverImmune systemTransplantationWound healingXenotransplantationHuman skinPathologySurgeryImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transplantation of human xenografts onto immunocompromised mice is a powerful research tool for studying wound healing. However, differences in healing between humans and mice and their small size limit this model. We determined whether human cadaver skin xenografts transplanted onto pigs with severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) would survive and not be rejected. Meshed (1:1.5), cryopreserved human cadaver skin was transplanted onto 10 partial thickness dermatome wounds in each of two normal domestic pigs and two SCID pigs. Autografts (n = 2/animal) from the four animals were used as controls. In normal pigs, all autografts were engrafted and healed with a minimal, if any, inflammation and scarring. All human xenografts were rejected by the normal pigs within 5-11 days and associated with an intense T-cell inflammatory response. In contrast, both autografts and xenografts were engrafted and survived the 28-day study in the SCID pigs with a minimal inflammation and no gross scarring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWound Repair and RegenerationSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207