<em>In vitro</em> Induction of Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells Toward Pancreatic Lineages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As of 2000, the success of pancreatic islet transplantation using the Edmonton protocol to treat type I diabetes mellitus still faced some obstacles. These include the limited number of cadaveric pancreas donors and the long-term use of immunosuppressants. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been considered to be a potential candidate as an alternative source of islet-like cell generation. Our previous reports have successfully illustrated the establishment of induction protocols for differentiating human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs) to insulin-producing cells (IPCs). However, the induction efficiency varied greatly. In this paper, we demonstrate the comparison of hDPSCs pancreatic induction efficiency via integrative (microenvironmental and genetic manipulation) and non-integrative (microenvironmental manipulation) induction protocols for delivering hDPSC-derived IPCs (hDPSC-IPCs). The results suggest distinct induction efficiency for both the induction approaches in terms of 3-dimensional colony structure, yield, pancreatic mRNA markers, and functional property upon multi-dosage glucose challenge. These findings will support the future establishment of a clinically applicable IPCs and pancreatic lineage production platform.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".