| Title |
Transplantable bioartificial pancreas devices: current status and future prospects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00423-015-1314-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara Ludwig, Stefan Ludwig |
| Abstract |
Islet transplantation has become a valuable therapy for patients with diabetes mellitus type 1.However, only selected patients with exhausted insulin therapy characterized by instable metabolic control and repeated severe hypoglycemia are transplant candidates. This strict indication is mainly due to the requirement for lifelong immunosuppression and the critical shortage for donor organs. Therefore, numerous research activities address these issues in order to provide beta cell replacement therapy to a broader cohort of patients with diabetes. The encapsulation of pancreatic islets within mainly alginate-based macro- or microcapsules withvarious physical configurations may allow protecting the islet graft without the need for immunosuppressive agents and moreover expanding the donor pool to animal tissue and novel insulin-producing cells. Despite major advances in encapsulation technology, a significant translation into clinical application is not evident. There are still issues that need to be resolved associated with graft oxygenation, immunprotection, inflammatory response, material biocompatibility, and transplantation site to list some of them. The recent advances in xenotransplantation and particularly in the field of stem cell-derived beta cells have generated a renewed scientific interest in encapsulation. This review aims to provide an overview on current encapsulation technologies as a treatment modality in cell replacement therapy for type 1 diabetes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 16 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 13% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,763,547
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#717
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,840
of 239,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.