MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097221946

Primary Graft Function, Metabolic Control, and Graft Survival After Islet

2013· article· en· W7097221946 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsletInsulinDiabetes mellitusTransplantationMetabolic control analysisBody weight
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE — To investigate the influence of primary graft function (PGF) on graft survival and metabolic control after islet transplantation with the Edmonton protocol. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — A total of 14 consecutive patients with brittle type 1 diabetes were enrolled in this phase 2 study and received median 12,479 islet equivalents per kilogram of body weight (interquartile range 11,072–15,755) in two or three sequential infusions within 67 days (44–95). PGF was estimated 1 month after the last infusion by the �-score, a previously validated index (range 0–8) based on insulin or oral treatment requirements, plasma C-peptide, blood glucose, and A1C. Primary outcome was graft survival, defined as insulin independence with A1C �6.5%. RESULTS — All patients gained insulin independence within 12 days (6–23) after the last infusion. PGF was optimal (�-score �7) in nine patients and suboptimal (�-score �6) in five. At last follow-up, 3.3 years (2.8–4.0) after islet transplantation, eight patients (57%) remained insulin independent with A1C �6.5%, including seven patients with optimal PGF (78%) and one with suboptimal PGF (20%) (P � 0.01, log-rank test). Graft survival was not significantly influenced by HLA mismatches or by preexisting islet autoantibodies. A1C, mean glucose,

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPancreatic function and diabetes→French-language works237,207→