MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406990721 · doi:10.3389/frtra.2025.1491568

Demise of cadaveric islet transplantation in the USA: Quo Vadis, 1 year after BLA approval and 24 years after the Edmonton breakthrough?

2025· review· en· W4406990721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Piotr Witkowski, Nathan Appelbaum, John J. Fung, Rolf N. Barth, Camillo Ricordi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Transplantation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemiseTransplantationStatus quoIsletCadaveric spasmMedicinePolitical scienceSurgeryLawInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than a year after the Biological License Application (BLA) approval for CellTrans, cadaveric islet transplantation remains in demise in the United States (U.S.). While the therapy is unavailable to Americans, it is already a standard of care procedure in other countries, including Canada, Australia, and many in Europe. This article discusses the challenges stemming from an outdated regulatory framework in the U.S. concerning cadaveric islet transplantation. It also presents advocacy efforts by the transplant community for appropriate regulatory adjustments and discusses future perspectives.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in TransplantationSame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207