Outcomes Following Extrahepatic and Intraportal Pancreatic Islet Transplantation: A Comparative Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies show promise for extrahepatic islet transplantation (ITx). However, clinical comparisons with intraportal ITx outcomes remain limited. METHODS: This single-center cohort study evaluates patients receiving extrahepatic or intraportal ITx between 1999 and 2018. Primary outcome was stimulated C-peptide level. Secondary outcomes were fasting plasma glucose, BETA-2 scores, and fasting C-peptide level. Multivariable logistic modeling evaluated factors independently associated with a composite variable of early graft failure and primary nonfunction within 60 d of ITx. RESULTS: Of 264 patients, 9 (3.5%) received extrahepatic ITx (gastric submucosal = 2, subcutaneous = 3, omental = 4). Group demographics were similar at baseline (age, body mass index, diabetes duration, and glycemic control). At 1-3 mo post-first infusion, patients receiving extrahepatic ITx had significantly lower stimulated C-peptide (0.05 nmol/L versus 1.2 nmol/L, P < 0.001), higher fasting plasma glucose (9.3 mmol/L versus 7.3 mmol/L, P < 0.001), and lower BETA-2 scores (0 versus 11.6, P < 0.001) and SUITO indices (1.5 versus 39.6, P < 0.001) compared with those receiving intraportal ITx. Subjects receiving extrahepatic grafts failed to produce median C-peptide ≥0.2 nmol/L within the first 60 d after transplant. Subsequent intraportal infusion following extrahepatic transplants achieved equivalent outcomes compared with patients receiving intraportal transplant alone. Extrahepatic ITx was independently associated with early graft failure/primary non-function (odds ratio 1.709, confidence interval 73.8-39 616.0, P < 0.001), whereas no other factors were independently predictive. CONCLUSIONS: Using current techniques, intraportal islet infusion remains the gold standard for clinical ITx, with superior engraftment, graft function, and glycemic outcomes compared with extrahepatic transplantation of human 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) | 0.000 | 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".