Selection of an optimal donor pancreas is the first key task for successful islet isolation. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in 11 centers in North America to develop an islet donor scoring system using donor variables. The data set consisting of 1,056 deceased donors was used for development of scoring system to predict islet isolation success (defined as postpurification islet yield > 400,000 islet equivalents). With an aid of univariate logistic regression analyses, we developed North American Islet Donor Score (NAIDS) ranging 0 through 100 points. The c-index in the development cohort was 0.73 [95% confidence interval 0.70 - 0.76]. The success rate increased proportionally as NAIDS increased, from 6.8% success in NAIDS < 50 points to 53.7% success in NAIDS ≥ 80 points. We further validated NAIDS using a separate set of data consisting of 179 islet isolations. Comparable outcome of NAIDS was observed in the validation cohort. The NAIDS may be a useful tool for donor pancreas selection in the clinical practice. Apart from its utility in clinical decision-making, the NAIDS may also be used in research setting as a standardized measurement of pancreas quality.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 11 November 2025.
All research outputs
#1,341,404
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Cell Transplantation
#86
of 1,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,454
of 367,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Transplantation
#6
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 367,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
