MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415183453 · doi:10.1016/j.cpsurg.2025.101917

Revolutionizing small bowel transplantation in mice and rats: A cutting-edge dry-lab simulation model

2025· article· en· W4415183453 on OpenAlexaff
Philipp Seeger, Anas Amin Preukschas, Jöran Lücke, Morsal Sabihi, Pablo Stringa, Natalia Lausada, Jeremías Moreira, Leandro Emmanuel Vecchio Dezillio, Javier Serradilla, Ane Miren Andrés Moreno, F Hernández, Stephan Bennemann, Andrés Machicote, Dimitra E. Zazara, Eleftherios Papazoglou, Baris Mercanoglu, Tarik Ghadban, Michael F. Nentwich, Felix Nickel, Oliver Mann, Thilo Hackert, M Gentilini, Jun Oh, Graziano Oldani, Stéphanie Chartier-Plante, David Harriman, Karl J. Oldhafer, Samuel Huber, Gabriel Gondolesi, Anastasios D. Giannou

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Problems in Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJung-Stiftung für Wissenschaft und ForschungBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsAnastomosisAnimal modelUsabilityTransplantationVirtual realityHaptic technologyResectionInflammatory Bowel Diseases

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Animal reduction is a key ethical goal in research. Small bowel transplantation in rodents is essential for studying rejection but training consumes many animals without scientific yield. Methods We developed a low-cost simulation model using silicone-coated intravenous lines sized to mouse vasculature (SMA, portal vein, aorta, vena cava). Eight experienced microsurgeons performed anastomoses and rated usability, similarity, and material quality (5-point Likert). Results The model allowed realistic training in suturing and vessel handling. Arterial components mimicked tissue well, while venous models were overly rigid. Usability was rated high, procedural similarity moderate–positive. Suturing and procedure times resembled live surgery, though haptic feedback and knot security were limited. Conclusion This reproducible dry-lab model supports early microsurgical training and reduces animal use. Despite material limitations, it provides a practical, ethical tool for foundational skill development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Problems in SurgerySame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207