MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407265641 · doi:10.1167/tvst.14.2.13

Clinical and Scientific Considerations for Whole Eye Transplantation: An Ophthalmologist's Perspective

2025· article· en· W4407265641 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Vision Science & Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan and Tissue Transplantation Research
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
FundersAdvanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)MedicineOphthalmologyTransplantationOptometryComputer scienceSurgeryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 40 million patients worldwide are legally blind from either retinal or optic nerve disease. 1 Retinal neurons, from photoreceptors to retinal ganglion cells (RGCs), have an intrinsically poor capacity for selfrepair after damage and no capacity to self-regenerate.Thus, vision restoration in patients with late-stage macular degeneration or glaucoma will likely require strategies to replace damaged cells.Currently, two major approaches are being pursued: (1) cell typespecific replacement and (2) whole eye transplantation (WET).Both strategies are associated with unique advantages and challenges.For the TVST readership, in this opinion piece, we summarize many of the salient barriers clinician-scientists must overcome to enable approaches like WET to transition from a cosmetic procedure to a surgery that provides functional recovery. Targeted Cell Type-Specific TransplantationSimply put, targeted, cell type-specific transplantation aims to replace non-functioning degenerated cells with healthy cells.The success of targeted cellular replacement strategies depends on the ability to generate a large volume of healthy, immune-compatible, high-grade cells that would need to be integrated into the neurosensory retina.Thankfully, advances in stem cell biology have enabled the production of patient-derived RGC-like and photoreceptor-like cells. 2,3Athough these cells display morphologic and electrophysiologic characteristics similar to native cells, critical functional differences still limit clinical translation.Additionally, standardizing good laboratory practices that allow for affordable and reproducible production of cells for transplantation is needed.Even if the barriers mentioned above are addressed, cellular integration is the major challenge limiting the translation of cell-type-specific transplantation.In the case of photoreceptor disease, scientists have successfully transplanted human embryonic stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells by loading them onto ultrathin, bioinert parylene sheets, for transplanting cells subretinally. 4The parylene sheet allows RPE cells to maintain their apical-basal orientation and for cells to be inserted into the correct tissue layer.One year after implantation, many patients reported >5 letter gain in best-corrected visual recovery in the treated eye and >5 letter loss in the untreated eye. 4 Such efforts, however, are even more complicated if photoreceptors or RGCs need replacing. 3Restoring vision with photoreceptors, for example, requires cells to not only physically reside in the correct retinal layer, with the correct apical to basal orientation, but also for their dendritic processes and axons to synapse with native cells in the retina.RGCs have the added barriers of needing approaches that can direct axon regeneration out of the eye, into the optic nerve, to the diencephalon, and drive synaptic formation with intracranial neurons.Complicating matters further is that there is no guarantee that intravitreal delivery of a suspension of RGCs would result in the correct RGC subtype to integrate into the areas where they are "missing."Few, if any, approaches have been described that can deliver this.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.413 · 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