ArticleCell transplantation2019
Validation of a New North American Islet Donor Score for Donor Pancreas Selection and Successful Islet Isolation in a Medium-Volume Islet Transplant Center.
Article in Cell transplantation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Inducible, but not constitutive, pancreatic REG/Reg isoforms are regulated by intestinal microbiota and pancreatic diseases.Mucosal immunology · 2025Article
- Status of islet transplantation and innovations to sustainable outcomes: novel sites, cell sources, and drug delivery strategies.Frontiers in transplantation · 2024Review
- Article
- Failure mode and effect analysis in human islet isolation: from the theoretical to the practical risk.Islets · 2021Article
- "Old School" Islet Purification Based on the Unit Gravity Sedimentation as a Rescue Technique for Intraportal Islet Transplantation-A Case Report.Cell transplantationArticle
- Standardized dynamic glucose testing reveals donor-dependent heterogeneity in human islet function.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The selection of optimal pancreas donors is one of the key factors in determining the ultimate outcome of clinical islet isolation. North American Islet Donor Score (NAIDS) allows for estimating the chance of the success of islet isolation. It was developed based on the data from over 1000 donors from 11 islet isolation centers and validated in the University of Alberta, Edmonton, on the cohort from the most active islet transplant center. Now we aimed to also validate it in our much less active program. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) and logistic regression analyses were obtained to test if NAIDS would better predict successful islet isolation (defined as post-purification islet yield >400,000 islet equivalents (IEQ)) than previously described Edmonton islet donor score (IDS) and our modified version of IDS. We analyzed the donor scores with reference to 82 of our islet isolation outcomes. The success rate increased proportionally as NAIDS increased, from 0% success in NAIDS < 50 points to 40% success in NAIDS ≥ 80 points. AUROCs were 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.79) for NAIDS, 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.71) for modified IDS, and 0.51 (95% CI 0.37-0.65) for IDS and did not differ significantly. However, based on logistic regression analyses, NAIDS was the only statistically significant predictor of successful isolation (p = 0.01). The main advantage of NAIDS is an enhanced ability to discriminate poor-quality donors than previously used scoring systems at University of Chicago, with 0% chance for success when NAIDS was <50 as compared with 40% success rate for IDS <50. NAIDS was found to be the most useful available tool for donor pancreas selection in clinical and research practice in our center, allowing for identification and rejection of poor-quality donors, saving time and resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.