MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403264745 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-74543-w

Evaluating different methods for kidney recellularization

2024· article· en· W4403264745 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Cecilia Luque-Badillo, César U. Monjarás-Ávila, Hans Adomat, Alan So, Claudia Chávez‐Muñoz

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputational biologyBioinformaticsData scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores a potential solution to the shortage of kidneys for transplantation in end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Currently, kidney transplantation stands as the optimal option, yet the scarcity of organs persists. Employing tissue engineering, researchers sought to assess the feasibility of generating kidneys for transplantation. Pig kidneys were utilized since they possess higher similarities to human kidneys. Cells were removed via decellularization, which maintains the organ's microarchitecture. Subsequently, pig kidney cells and human red blood cells were perfused into the vacant kidney structure to reconstitute it. The methodologies employed showed promising results, suggesting a viable approach to increase the recellularization rate in whole pig kidneys. This proof-of-concept establishes a groundwork for potentially extending this technology to human kidneys, tackling the organ shortage, thus positively enhancing outcomes for ESRD patients by increasing the availability of transplantable organs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207