MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3167227672 · doi:10.82308/5362

Alginate microbead production for diabetes cellular therapy

2017· article· en· W3167227672 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen E. Markwick

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobead (research)Production (economics)Diabetes mellitusMedicineBiologyEconomicsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The predominant treatment for type 1 diabetes, insulin injections to regulate blood glucose levels, requires frequent blood glucose monitoring, injections, and is often associated with episodes of hypoglycaemia. Islet transplantation has emerged as an alternative cell-based therapy for type 1 diabetes to avoid the need for exogenous insulin. The Edmonton protocol, in which islet cells are isolated from a donor pancreas and transplanted into a type 1 diabetic undergoing immune suppression, can result in insulin independence in > 40 % of recipients three years post transplantation. Islet encapsulation in alginate beads is being investigated as a means to provide an immunoprotective barrier between the graft and the host immune system in order to overcome the need for chronic immune suppression. Traditional nozzle-based encapsulation methods produce highly uniform alginate beads, but limit the viscosity of alginate that can be used for encapsulation. An alternative stirred emulsification and internal gelation encapsulation approach has high production rates and can produce beads from highly concentrated alginate, but a broad bead size distribution is obtained. The objective of this work was to develop microchannel emulsification as a method to produce highly uniform, concentrated alginate beads at production rates sufficient for clinical islet transplantation. A dual-flow chamber system was designed, consisting in a microchannel plate with oblong straight-through channels mounted between two flow channels. Alginate droplets form as the to-be-dispersed phase flows through the channels and contacts an acidified continuous oil phase that also triggers internal gelation. Significant process development involving modification of the flow rate, continuous phase liquid, emulsifier, microchannel dimensions and material, and operating procedure was required to facilitate droplet formation and achieve stable bead production. The current process can be used to produce 4 mL/min/channel of 0.5% to 2.5% alginate beads of approximately 3 mm in diameter, with a coefficient of variation of 9 %. Microchannel emulsification represents a promising method to encapsulate cells in concentrated alginate beads that are highly uniform at high production rates. The alginate bead production process described in this work is a promising new method for cellular therapy and other applications in the food, drug, cosmetic and other industries.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicPancreatic function and diabetes→French-language works237,207→