The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 31 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Transplantation of chemically induced pluripotent stem-cell-derived islets under abdominal anterior rectus sheath in a type 1 diabetes patient.
Open accessAbstract
We report the 1-year results from one patient as the preliminary analysis of a first-in-human phase I clinical trial (ChiCTR2300072200) assessing the feasibility of autologous transplantation of chemically induced pluripotent stem-cell-derived islets (CiPSC islets) beneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath for type 1 diabetes treatment. The patient achieved sustained insulin independence starting 75 days post-transplantation. The patient's time-in-target glycemic range increased from a baseline value of 43.18% to 96.21% by month 4 post-transplantation, accompanied by a decrease in glycated hemoglobin, an indicator of long-term systemic glucose levels at a non-diabetic level. Thereafter, the patient presented a state of stable glycemic control, with time-in-target glycemic range at >98% and glycated hemoglobin at around 5%. At 1 year, the clinical data met all study endpoints with no indication of transplant-related abnormalities. Promising results from this patient suggest that further clinical studies assessing CiPSC-islet transplantation in type 1 diabetes are warranted.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a first-in-human phase I trial (ChiCTR2300072200), a 25-year-old woman with 11-year type 1 diabetes received an autologous transplant of chemically induced pluripotent stem-cell-derived islets (CiPSC islets) beneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath and achieved sustained insulin independence from day 75 post-transplantation. At 1 year, all study endpoints were met with no transplant-related abnormalities detected.
Key findings
- The patient achieved complete insulin independence on day 75 and remained insulin-independent through 1 year of follow-up; daily exogenous insulin had been 54 ± 0.9 units/day at baseline.
- Time-in-target glycemic range rose from a baseline of 43.18% to 87.18% at month 2 and 96.21% at month 4, and was >98% for 8 months by the 1-year endpoint; HbA1c fell from 7.57% at baseline to 6.50% at day 75 and 5.37% at day 120, remaining in the non-diabetic range (<5.7%) thereafter.
- Graft function: fasting C-peptide was undetectable at baseline, rose to 59.6–102.6 pmol/L by week 2, and plateaued at 407.1–721.6 pmol/L after insulin independence; BETA-2 score increased from 0.13 at baseline to 21.42 at day 75 and 41.83 at day 365. OGTT peak C-peptide was 1,847.0, 1,439.9, and 2,472.6 pmol/L at days 180, 270, and 365 (3.5-, 2.8-, and 3.4-fold over fasting).
- Safety: no treatment-emergent serious adverse events; treatment-emergent AEs were limited to the peri-transplantation period (puncture-site pain, nausea/vomiting from general anesthesia); no severe hypoglycemic events during follow-up; MRI (T2W-FS and T1W-FS) and tumor markers (β-HCG, AFP, CEA, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9) showed no evidence of teratoma over 1 year.
Methods
- First patient of an ongoing first-in-human phase I trial (TJFCH-iPS-001; ChiCTR2300072200) evaluating safety, tolerability, and efficacy of autologous CiPSC islets in type 1 diabetes; primary endpoints were HbA1c <7.0% or a ≥1% decrease from baseline at 90–365 days, absence of severe hypoglycemic events, and safety/tolerability; secondary endpoints included insulin independence and stimulated C-peptide ≥0.3 ng/mL.
- Autologous CiPSCs were generated from the patient's adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells by a four-step small-molecule chemical reprogramming protocol (clone CiPSC-#8 selected from 23 colonies), then differentiated via a six-stage protocol into islet-like cells; release testing included dd-PCR for residual PSCs, WGS/WES, viability (98%), CHGA positivity (94.5%), and a glucose stimulation index of 1.37.
- 1,488,283 IEQ (19,843 IEQ/kg) were injected under ultrasound guidance into the abdominal anterior rectus sheath on June 25, 2023, across 7 injections; the patient continued existing immunosuppression (tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, methylprednisolone) with basiliximab and etanercept induction. Outcomes were tracked by continuous glucose monitoring, HbA1c, C-peptide, OGTT, BETA-2 score, ultrasound/MRI, tumor markers, and autoantibodies.
Limitations
- Stated by the paper: safety and efficacy beyond 1 year and in more patients remain to be evaluated; the trial includes three patients total, and data from the second and third patients were not yet mature for reporting, so a larger cohort is warranted.
- Stated by the paper: the patient's pre-existing immunosuppression for a transplanted liver precluded evaluation of the recipient's immune response to the autologous graft, limiting insight into potential autoimmune response.
- Evident from the text: this is a single-patient report, so no control group or between-patient comparison is possible, and the concurrent immunosuppressive regimen (including basiliximab and etanercept induction) cannot be separated from the graft's contribution to the observed outcomes.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
78 Own result · 33 Own method · 20 Own interpretation · 9 Sources not found · 9 No basis given · 8 No full text of the sources · 4 Not checked yet · 3 Supported · 1 Supported so far
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Recently, we successfully reprogrammed human somatic cells to chemically induced PSCs (CiPSCs).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] 4. Guan, J. ∙ Wang, G. ∙ Wang, J. ... Chemical reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotent stem cells Nature. 2022; 605:325-331 Crossref Scopus (178) PubMed Google Scholar source
- Supportedcites [5] 5. Liuyang, S. ∙ Wang, G. ∙ Wang, Y. ... Highly efficient and rapid generation of human pluripotent stem cells by chemical reprogramming Cell Stem Cell. 2023; 30:450-459.e9 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (44) PubMed Google Scholar source
The Results report generating hCiPSCs from human somatic cells obtained from all 17 tested donors. The Results also describe tests confirming that the resulting cells meet the criteria for pluripotent stem cells. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thereafter, the patient presented a state of stable glycemic control, with time-in-target glycemic range at >98% and glycated hemoglobin at around 5%.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among them, 50 mice transplanted with the patient’s CiPSC-islets underwent histopathological analysis of major organs (heart, liver, spleen, kidney, lung, and brain) at the end of the observation period (Figure S2D), showing absence of graft-related malignancy even in high-dose transplantation experiments of up to 1 × 107 per mouse (Table S2).”
plainn = 50- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Autologous CiPSCs were induced from adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (ADSCs) isolated from the patient’s adipose tissue by chemical reprogramming as described previously.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] 4. Guan, J. ∙ Wang, G. ∙ Wang, J. ... Chemical reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotent stem cells Nature. 2022; 605:325-331 Crossref Scopus (178) PubMed Google Scholar source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All safety and efficacy clinical endpoints were met at 1-year follow-up of the patient”
- Also stated in: § 1 Send email to zhongyangshen@vip.sina.com … Show more Show less · plain
“At 1 year, the clinical data met all study endpoints with no indication of transplant-related abnormalities.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Send email to zhongyangshen@vip.sina.com … Show more Show less · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At 1 year, the clinical data met all study endpoints with no indication of transplant-related abnormalities.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CiPSC-islet preparation met release criteria for transplantation, presenting uniform spheroids between 50–250 μm and scarlet dithizone staining (Figures S3A and S3B), a high viability of 98% (Figure S3C; Table S1, part 3), and a Chromogranin A (CHGA)-positive proportion of 94.5% of total cells (Figures S3D and S3E), of which 56.4% were C-peptide and NKX6.1-positive cells.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patient CiPSC-islets presented islet-sized aggregates containing approximately 60% β cells, 10% α-like cells, and 10% δ-like cells on average (Figures S1A–S1C).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to enrollment, the patient’s plasma C-peptide levels were below the limit of detection (6.6 pmol/L) under both fasting and glucose-challenged conditions.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within 2 weeks after transplantation, the patient’s daily exogenous insulin dose requirement began to reduce from baseline of 54 ± 0.9 units/day (Figure 2A).”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient achieved sustained insulin independence starting 75 days post-transplantation.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Send email to zhongyangshen@vip.sina.com … Show more Show less · plain
“Exogenous insulin-independent glycemic control was restored in the patient”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Send email to zhongyangshen@vip.sina.com … Show more Show less · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“by contrast, teratoma formation in CiPSC-#8-transplanted positive control mice rapidly resulted in teratoma formation (Figure S2C).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and similar global gene expression profiles of CiPSC-differentiated pancreatic endocrine cells to their native counterparts (Figures S1G and S1H).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient’s time-in-target glycemic range increased from a baseline value of 43.18% to 96.21% by month 4 post-transplantation”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After CiPSC-islet transplantation, the patient’s fasting serum C-peptide level, which was undetectable at baseline, increased promptly”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patient-derived islets were generated with chemically induced pluripotent stem cells”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Her time in the target glucose range (TIR) was 43.18%”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, whole genome/exome sequencing (WGS/WES) analyses showed no de novo genomic aberrations suggestive of tumorigenicity or pathogenicity in patient CiPSC-#8 or patient CiPSC-islets (Table S1, part 5).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patient CiPSC-islets consistently reversed diabetes in mice (Figures S2E and S2F; Table S2).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transplantation of these islets to an abdominal site led to engraftment in one patient”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, meal-responsiveness was detected on the day 56 visit, when C-peptide secretion increased by 20% at 2 h post-meal (350.9 vs. 297.9 pmol/L) (Figure S4B).”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“achieving the primary study endpoint of HbA1c <7% from 90–365 days post-transplantation.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the patient’s HbA1c value showed a reduction from 7.57% at baseline to 6.50% at the day 75 visit (Figure 2D)”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a high viability of 98% (Figure S3C; Table S1, part 3)”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the patient experienced 3 incidences of severe hypoglycemic events in the prior year.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient achieved complete insulin independence on day 75.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“After CiPSC-islet transplantation, the patient achieved insulin independence within 3 months post-transplantation”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After transplantation, the FBG gradually decreased.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
In the paper
“which showed no detectable residual PSCs in the CiPSC-islets (Table S1, part 4).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mice transplanted with the patient’s CiPSC-islets showed increased human C-peptide secretion to approximately 500 pmol/L, which was sustained thereafter for the observation period of 44 weeks (Figure S2I).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“her time in the very low range of blood glucose (<54 mg/dL) was 2.01%”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient’s fasting blood glucose (FBG) monitored by CGM was 210 ± 59 (mean ± SD) mg/dL during the three months before transplantation (Figure 2B).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CGM data demonstrated that the patient achieved substantial improvement in blood glucose time-in-range (TIR) in comparison with baseline measurements (Figure 2C).”
boostedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thereafter, the patient remained insulin-independent for the follow-up period of 1 year (Figure 2A).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thereafter, the patient presented a state of stable glycemic control, with time-in-target glycemic range at >98% and glycated hemoglobin at around 5%.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All patient CiPSC clones tested showed the ability to differentiate into beta cells”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After CiPSC-islet transplantation into the patient, we demonstrate that the graft could be routinely imaged by ultrasound and MRI as necessary for regular detection of morphological changes at the site.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We consistently observed that all the measures were in the normal range (Figure 4Q).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No treatment-emergent SAEs were observed.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, this study reports positive clinical data in this patient after CiPSC-islet transplantation”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“T2W-FS images taken on day 28 post-transplantation revealed patchy, small, nodular high-signal areas at the left rectus abdominis (Figure 4C), compared with the images obtained before transplantation (Figures 4A and 4B), indicating the location of the transplanted CiPSC-islet grafts.”
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the oral glucose-tolerance test (OGTT) before transplantation, the patient’s blood glucose level surged from 67 mg/dL at 0 h to 344 mg/dL at the final measure taken at 3 h after glucose administration (Figure 3B).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No occurrence of severe hypoglycemic events was observed throughout follow-up.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No signs of teratoma were detected by the medical imaging or tumor marker measures throughout the 1-year follow-up.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this patient was already on immunosuppressants for a transplanted liver”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This report describes for the first time the use of stem-cell-derived islet transplantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath in human.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, at the day 75 visit after transplantation, the patient’s blood glucose level remained relatively stable during OGTT (Figure 3B).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The site was visualized by ultrasound before, during, and 3 days post-transplantation, which showed CiPSC-islets localized between the anterior rectus sheath and the rectus abdominis (Figure S4A).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Teratomas were observed by 8 weeks, which were then embedded in paraffin.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as well as the realization of routine, non-invasive graft monitoring underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Final release criteria-qualified patient CiPSC-islets were transplanted by ultrasound-guided injection into the abdominal anterior rectus sheath of the patient”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data indicated that intensive insulin therapy was insufficient for achieving adequate glycemic control.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The safety and efficacy of CiPSC-islets were evaluated in two systematic preclinical studies in nonhuman primates, in which amelioration of diabetes and no tumorigenicity during long-term observation were demonstrated”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] 20. Du, Y. ∙ Liang, Z. ∙ Wang, S. ... Human pluripotent stem-cell-derived islets ameliorate diabetes in non-human primates Nat. Med. 2022; 28:272-282 Crossref Scopus (85) PubMed Google Scholar
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Liang, Z. ∙ Sun, D. ∙ Lu, S. ... Implantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath enables effective and functional engraftment of stem-cell-derived islets Nat. Metab. 2023; 5:29-40 Crossref Scopus (24) PubMed Google Scholar source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Because conventional islet transplantation by infusion into the hepatic portal vein suffers from certain limitations, such as acute graft loss triggered by an instant blood-mediated inflammatory response (IBMIR)”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] 22. Mehigan, D.G. ∙ Bell, W.R. ∙ Zuidema, G.D. ... Disseminated intravascular coagulation and portal hypertension following pancreatic islet autotransplantation Ann. Surg. 1980; 191:287-293 Crossref Scopus (96) PubMed Google Scholar source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] 23. Shapiro, A.M. ∙ Lakey, J.R. ∙ Ryan, E.A. ... Islet transplantation in seven patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using a glucocorticoid-free immunosuppressive regimen N. Engl. J. Med. 2000; 343:230-238 Crossref Scopus (4611) PubMed Google Scholar source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Moberg, L. ∙ Johansson, H. ∙ Lukinius, A. ... Production of tissue factor by pancreatic islet cells as a trigger of detrimental thrombotic reactions in clinical islet transplantation Lancet. 2002; 360:2039-2045 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (0) PubMed Google Scholar source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The patient’s clinical presentation, including glycemic lability, β cell depletion, and hypoglycemia, aligned with the indications for clinical islet transplantation.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Four transplanted monkeys were assessed at 13 weeks post-transplantation by systemic ultrasonography and full autopsies, which showed no evidence of teratoma formation or abnormalities at any major organs.21”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Liang, Z. ∙ Sun, D. ∙ Lu, S. ... Implantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath enables effective and functional engraftment of stem-cell-derived islets Nat. Metab. 2023; 5:29-40 Crossref Scopus (24) PubMed Google Scholar source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings demonstrated that the patient CiPSC-islets met the finalstage QC criteria.”
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Importantly, in these preclinical studies, we also developed a suitable transplantation strategy for hPSC-islets.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Liang, Z. ∙ Sun, D. ∙ Lu, S. ... Implantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath enables effective and functional engraftment of stem-cell-derived islets Nat. Metab. 2023; 5:29-40 Crossref Scopus (24) PubMed Google Scholar source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The safety and efficacy of CiPSC-islets were evaluated in two systematic preclinical studies in nonhuman primates, in which amelioration of diabetes and no tumorigenicity during long-term observation were demonstrated”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] 20. Du, Y. ∙ Liang, Z. ∙ Wang, S. ... Human pluripotent stem-cell-derived islets ameliorate diabetes in non-human primates Nat. Med. 2022; 28:272-282 Crossref Scopus (85) PubMed Google Scholar
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Liang, Z. ∙ Sun, D. ∙ Lu, S. ... Implantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath enables effective and functional engraftment of stem-cell-derived islets Nat. Metab. 2023; 5:29-40 Crossref Scopus (24) PubMed Google Scholar source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The improvements in FBG, TIR, and HbA1c and the achievement of insulin independence demonstrated a restoration of the patient’s glycemic control following CiPSC-islet transplantation.”
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The transplantation beneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath offers advantages for convenient monitoring of the implanted CiPSC-islets using ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings suggest that the favorable engraftment microenvironment at this site may be an underlying factor to the robust C-peptide secretion and relatively rapid reversal of diabetes observed in the patient.”
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
In the paper
“The positive metabolic data seen in this clinical study are consistent with that seen in our preclinical study in nonhuman primates, in which we sought to identify an optimal transplant site for CiPSC-islets.21”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Liang, Z. ∙ Sun, D. ∙ Lu, S. ... Implantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath enables effective and functional engraftment of stem-cell-derived islets Nat. Metab. 2023; 5:29-40 Crossref Scopus (24) PubMed Google Scholar source
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CiPSC-islet morphology and purity were confirmed using dithizone (DTZ) stain and microscopic evaluation”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Dd-PCR methods can resolve a single residual undifferentiated CiPSC in 106 CiPSCs-islets.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The differentiating and Stage 6 patient CiPSC-islets used for clinical transplantation were assessed to meet quality standards according to the list of requirement standards in Table S1 Part 2.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While further evaluation is required, these findings suggest potential advantages of CiPSCs for clinical applications.”
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because T1D is an autoimmune disease, an autologous islet transplant would likely still necessitate the use of immunosuppressants.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The transportation stability of the product was validated for quality according to the requirements in Table S1 Part 3 after the transportation processes.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicating successful engraftment of CiPSC-islets in the subanterior rectus sheath.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data indicated more potent insulin secretion by the graft in response to oral glucose administration since the day 180 visit compared with day 75.”
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, the findings suggest a positive impact on the metabolic outcomes of the patient using this treatment approach.”
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, both T2W-FS and T1W-FS images indicated no evidence of teratoma formation in the graft site during the 1-year follow-up.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, transplantation to this site supports graft retrieval if necessary.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and this allowed the assessment of therapeutic capacity of CiPSC-islets without adding to the patient’s immunosuppression burden”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CiPSCs possess characteristics that are potentially advantageous to the clinical manufacture of autologous stem cells.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 51
- It may state two separate claims as one. 54
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“the generation of CiPSCs from somatic cells employs abiotic, small-molecule chemicals as reprogramming factors that are easily manufactured and standardized, non-genome integrating, scalable, and fine-tunable.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] 6. Wang, J. ∙ Sun, S. ∙ Deng, H. Chemical reprogramming for cell fate manipulation: Methods, applications, and perspectives Cell Stem Cell. 2023; 30:1130-1147 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (17) PubMed Google Scholar source
The Introduction (passage 6; page not provided) describes small-molecule reprogramming factors as abiotic, easily manufactured and standardized, and non-integrative to the genome. It also calls chemical reprogramming suitable for scalable stem-cell generation and describes the process as controllable and tunable (passage 4). (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Different from conventional iPSCs, which are generated from somatic cells by genetic overexpression of transcription factors, the generation of CiPSCs from somatic cells employs abiotic, small-molecule chemicals as reprogramming factors”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] 6. Wang, J. ∙ Sun, S. ∙ Deng, H. Chemical reprogramming for cell fate manipulation: Methods, applications, and perspectives Cell Stem Cell. 2023; 30:1130-1147 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (17) PubMed Google Scholar source
The Introduction describes conventional iPSC generation through forced expression of defined genes in somatic cells and contrasts TF-induced reprogramming with chemical reprogramming. It explicitly calls small molecules abiotic reprogramming factors and describes CiPSCs produced through chemical reprogramming. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The small molecules used in the chemical reprogramming approach offer ease of manufacture and standardization and are highly controllable, scalable, and cost-effective, which are important for standardized manufacturing of therapeutic cells.6”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] 6. Wang, J. ∙ Sun, S. ∙ Deng, H. Chemical reprogramming for cell fate manipulation: Methods, applications, and perspectives Cell Stem Cell. 2023; 30:1130-1147 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (17) PubMed Google Scholar source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CiPSC-islets were found to be glucose-responsive in vitro, with a glucose stimulation index of 1.37 (Table S1, part 3).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the 1-year endpoint, the patient’s TIR had been >98% for 8 months, a substantial improvement in comparison with the baseline TIR of 43.18% (Figure 2C).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“ultimately achieving over 98% blood glucose TIR without exogenous insulin use”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The transplanted mice also showed restoration of glucose tolerance and glucose-responsive C-peptide secretion (Figures S2G and S2H).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pancreas graft was removed after a year due to severe thrombotic complications”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Her HbA1c level during the 2 years before enrollment was 7.40%–8.00%, higher than the American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s recommended target for T1D management (<7.0%).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29] 29. American Diabetes Association Professional, Practice Committee
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and a Chromogranin A (CHGA)-positive proportion of 94.5% of total cells (Figures S3D and S3E), of which 56.4% were C-peptide and NKX6.1-positive cells.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CiPSC-islet preparation also contained 13.4% glucagon-positive cells and 15.9% somatostatin-positive cells, as determined by flow cytometry and immunofluorescence staining (Figures S3D–S3J).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These transplantation experiments showed good survival of patient CiPSC-islets and an absence of teratoma formation or graft overgrowth (Figures S2A and S2B), including mice observed for an extended period of up to 58 weeks;”
plainn = 244- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A 25-year-old woman was diagnosed with T1D for 11 years (as of time of transplantation in 2023).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Her medical history included two liver transplantations due to cryptogenic cirrhosis in 2014 and 2016, respectively, and a whole pancreas transplantation in 2017 due to unstable glycemic control.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measurements during the three months before transplantation showed severe glucose variability and endangerment by hypoglycemia”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to the clinical study, the patient CiPSC-islets were assessed in 244 immunodeficient mice in transplantation experiments, with no tumorigenesis observed in all transplanted mice (Table S2).”
plainn = 244- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After insulin independence, the fasting C-peptide reached a plateau and fluctuated within a range of 407.1 to 721.6 pmol/L.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Her weight was 75 kg, and her body mass index was 27.3 kg/m2.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Based on assessments of panel reactive antibodies (PRAs), the patient was found to be PRA-positive for HLA-I and HLA-II antigens”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient was under regular immunosuppression for liver transplant maintenance.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite receiving intensive insulin treatment at a daily dose of 54 ± 0.9 units (mean ± SD) under the supervision of an endocrinologist, the patient was still not able to achieve target glycemic control.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After CiPSC-islet transplantation, the patient’s fasting serum C-peptide level, which was undetectable at baseline, increased promptly and reached levels ranging 59.6–102.6 pmol/L by the second week after transplantation (Figure 3A).”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was consistent with single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis of the patient CiPSC-islets, which also showed ∼13% endocrine progenitor cells and ∼8% enterochromaffin-like cells (Figures S1D–S1F)”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“accompanied by a decrease in glycated hemoglobin, an indicator of long-term systemic glucose levels at a non-diabetic level.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Her fasting glucose fluctuated greatly, with an average value of 210 ± 59 mg/dL (mean ± SD).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A TIR of 87.18% was achieved in the patient at month 2 post-transplantation, which increased to 96.21% at month 4 (Figure 2C).”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data showed that both transcripts were detected in CiPSC-islets at levels lower than the positive control and similar to the negative control, indicating that residual CiPSCs were not detected.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this patient, the transplantation area exhibited signal intensities comparable to the surrounding normal muscle tissue (iso-signal), indicating absence of abnormal fat accumulation (Figures 4I–4P).”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before transplantation, the patient suffered from long-term, hard-to-control diabetes complicated by episodes of severe hypoglycemia.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The blood glucose measurement at the 2 h time point was 155 mg/dL, which is below the diagnostic threshold for diabetes (≥200 mg/dL at 2 h).38”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [38]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“OGTT tests on days 180, 270, and 365 visits showed peak C-peptide levels of 1,847.0, 1,439.9, and 2,472.6 pmol/L, respectively, while the fold change in peak C-peptide values relative to the fasting C-peptide values was 3.5, 2.8, and 3.4, respectively (Figure 3D).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parallel C-peptide levels were 589.2 pmol/L in the fasting state and peaked at 2 h after glucose administration at 1,436.5 pmol/L, showing a 2.4-fold stimulation (Figure 3D).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To improve glycemic control, the patient had previously received a pancreas transplantation in 2017, which had to be removed a year later due to thrombotic complications.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A slight elevation in glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody (GADA) level at one time point was observed.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Karyotype screen of the 23 clones with good morphology and normal cell growth showed abnormal karyotype in one, #11, which was removed from downstream screening.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, good-manufacturing-practice-compliant manufacture of personalized CiPSC-islets for autologous transplantation was conducted, allowing for the first report of clinical transplantation of CiPSC-derived cells.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Throughout follow-up, the patient was hospitalized one time for an upper respiratory tract infection and was discharged 5 days later.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient’s BETA-2 score increased steadily from a baseline value of 0.13 to 21.42 by the day 75 visit, with the most recent value of 41.83 at day 365 visit (Figure 3E)”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Insulin autoantibody (IAA), islet cell antibody (ICA), insulinoma-associated-2 antibodies (IA-2Ab), and zinc transporter 8 antibody (ZnT8) were consistently indicated as negative.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, a whole pancreas transplantation was performed on May 4th, 2017, but the pancreas graft was removed one year later (August 8th, 2018) due to thrombotic complications.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the day 180 visit, the patient’s glucose tolerance showed further improvement, showing relatively stable performance in OGTTs of subsequent visits thereafter (Figures 3B and 3D).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The treatment-emergent AEs were limited to the peri-transplantation period, which included pain at the puncture area and nausea and vomiting due to general anesthesia.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before CiPSC-islets transplantation, the patient had undergone two liver transplants on July 8th, 2014 and September 27th, 2016, for liver cryptogenic cirrhosis.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the one with the highest cell yield was chosen for downstream manufacture (patient CiPSC-#8).”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the day 120 visit, the meal-responsiveness of C-peptide secretions was further improved, with a fasting level of 407.1 pmol/L and a 2-h postprandial level of 834.1 pmol/L.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this report, we present data from the clinical trial's first participant—a 25-year-old female with an 11-year history of T1D.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequent T2W-FS images taken over the following 365 days after transplantation showed that the signal of the grafts remained consistent and stable in terms of location, shape, size, and magnetic resonance signal intensity, and the left abdominal rectus exhibited no signs of compression, displacement, or deformation, which together showed no indication of abnormal growth (Figures 4D–4H).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average temperature was -196.2°C, with highest temperature at -190.7°C and lowest temperature at -196.4°C respectively.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We found that transplantation to an extrahepatic site, underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath, led to superior CiPSC-islet survival and maturation, resulting in secretion levels of C-peptide (a marker of endogenous insulin secretion) and stimulation indices approaching those of non-diabetic humans.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Liang, Z. ∙ Sun, D. ∙ Lu, S. ... Implantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath enables effective and functional engraftment of stem-cell-derived islets Nat. Metab. 2023; 5:29-40 Crossref Scopus (24) PubMed Google Scholar source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“we established a highly efficient, optimized differentiation protocol for the generation of islet-like cells from CiPSCs (CiPSC-islets), whose transcriptomic identity, composition, and insulin secretory function were comparable to that of native human islets.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] 20. Du, Y. ∙ Liang, Z. ∙ Wang, S. ... Human pluripotent stem-cell-derived islets ameliorate diabetes in non-human primates Nat. Med. 2022; 28:272-282 Crossref Scopus (85) PubMed Google Scholar
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with in-process quality control (QC) assessments throughout the manufacturing process.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study was approved by the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China and the Medical Ethics Committee at Tianjin First Central Hospital.”
- Also stated in: § Author contributions · plain
“and was approved by the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China and the Medical Ethics Committee at Tianjin First Central Hospital”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Author contributions · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“indicating an increased risk of rejection and graft failure in the case of islet allotransplantation.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient CiPSC-islet manufacturing process was subject to in-process QCs as shown in Table S1, part 2.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systematic characterization of the selected patient CiPSC line used for downstream manufacture (patient CiPSC-#8) was performed, including trilineage differentiation potential and genomic stability assays.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings supported the viability of CiPSC-islet transplantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath, which led to relatively rapid restoration of insulin-independent glycemic control in the patient.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In vivo tumorigenicity tests prior to clinical transplantation of patient CiPSC-islets were performed on 50 immunodeficient SCID/Beige mice.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, an extrahepatic site was employed, which was a favorable option for this patient on account of her transplanted liver.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-synonymous mutations identified were shown below. The pathogenicity and/or carcinogenicity of these mutations was evaluated by screening of each genomic variants against the COSMIC Census, and their status in COSMIC databases and Clinvar databases, if any, was annotated in the right two columns.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Viability and yield were verified by trypan blue (Invitrogen, T10282) and Countess II Automated Cell Counter (Invitrogen, AMQAX1000).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The BETA-2 score, which used fasting metabolic variables, was derived and validated by Peter Senior, Shareen Forbes, and colleagues from individuals transplanted in the Edmonton Islet Transplantation Program and is widely used in the clinical assessment of graft function after islet transplantation.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [69]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, safety and efficacy beyond 1 year and in more patients remain to be evaluated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“while each 1% reduction of HbA1c toward the physiological level has been associated with a 21% reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications and death.52”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [52]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Follow-up with these patients is ongoing, as they were sequentially enrolled in accordance with regulatory safety requirements.”
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and was conducted in accordance to the Clinical Study Protocol (Data S1).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whole-genome sequencing data and whole-exome sequencing data (WGS and WES) were generated for the patient’s ADSCs, CiPSC line, and the patient’s CiPSC-islets.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flow cytometry was performed in dissociated cells for islet endocrine cell-related markers (NKX6.1, C-peptide, GCG, SST).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During this time before transplantation, the items in Quality control and final check of CiPSC-islets preparation before transplantation (as shown in Table S1 Part 3) were tested as a final check.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current patient provided written informed consent to undergo the procedure.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, the use of immunosuppressants in this patient precluded the evaluation of immune response of the recipient to the autologous graft.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“but insight into potential autoimmune response was limited.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, due to the limited follow-up period and according to our clinical trial protocol, data from these two patients are not yet matured for reporting.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, these findings indicate the feasibility of chemically induced autologous PSCs for cell therapy, constituting a viable personalized medicine strategy.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Glucose stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS) assay was conducted to evaluate the Glucose Stimulation Index (GSI) of functional potency.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In comparison to intraportal transplantation, the abdominal rectus sheath site also encompasses other safety considerations, such as ease of access for transplantation and imaging and site retention of graft.21”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Liang, Z. ∙ Sun, D. ∙ Lu, S. ... Implantation underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath enables effective and functional engraftment of stem-cell-derived islets Nat. Metab. 2023; 5:29-40 Crossref Scopus (24) PubMed Google Scholar source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For the CiPSC induction, a four step chemical reprogramming protocol without genetic manipulation was applied to patient ADSCs as described previously.4”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] 4. Guan, J. ∙ Wang, G. ∙ Wang, J. ... Chemical reprogramming of human somatic cells to pluripotent stem cells Nature. 2022; 605:325-331 Crossref Scopus (178) PubMed Google Scholar source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the viability of CiPSC-islets was tested by fluorescein diacetate (FDA) / propidium iodide (PI) staining.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CiPSC-islet cell recovery and preparation was conducted at the clinical site under GMP-level conditions.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trial is ongoing and includes three patients in total.”
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Data from another clinical trial (NCT04786262), which transplanted hPSC-derived islets into the hepatic portal vein, were recently announced, the findings of which also indicated positive outcomes post-transplantation.60”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [60]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Short tandem repeat (STR), whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES) tests were conducted on the selected clone #8, which passed all the tests.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together with our preclinical studies, the clinical data in this report support the clinical value of this transplantation strategy, warranting continued exploration.”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient CiPSC-#8 cell line was assessed for quality according to the requirements in Table S1 Part 1.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thorough testing of the final CiPSC-islets was conducted to detect for residues of concern, including residual BSA and cytokines.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“C-peptide measures taken in parallel showed undetectable C-peptide levels (Figure 3D), indicating a complete destruction of β cells and poor glucose tolerance.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, mycoplasma contamination, sterility and endotoxin levels were checked according to protocols in the Chinese pharmacopoeia (2020 version).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reagents used in the entire manufacturing process was subject to reagent controls, including checking documentation of certificates of analysis (COA) of every reagent.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to the start of patient recruitment, the trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2300072200).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We performed droplet digital PCR (dd-PCR) to verify biosafety of patient CiPSCs-islets.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, these results indicated good graft function of the transplanted CiPSC-islets and recovery of endogenous, glucose-responsive insulin secretion in the patient.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of the mouse experiments performed were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Peking University.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The extraperitoneal transplant site has minimal invasiveness of injection and ease of imaging.
“Other important advantages of this self-contained extraperitoneal transplant site include minimal invasiveness of injection at the site and ease of imaging.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The clinical improvements observed after transplantation are attributable to the transplanted CiPSC-islets rather than to other factors such as the immunosuppressive regimen, residual endogenous insulin secretion, or the natural history of the patient’s diabetes.
“After CiPSC-islet transplantation, the patient achieved insulin independence within 3 months post-transplantation, ultimately achieving over 98% blood glucose TIR without exogenous insulin use.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The absence of tumorigenicity observed in mice and nonhuman primates predicts the absence of tumorigenicity in the human patient.
“Prior to the clinical study, the patient CiPSC-islets were assessed in 244 immunodeficient mice in transplantation experiments, with no tumorigenesis observed in all transplanted mice (Table S2).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The patient’s immunosuppressive maintenance regimen did not confound the glycemic or graft-function outcomes attributed to the CiPSC-islet transplant.
“the immunosuppressive maintenance regimen included tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and methylprednisolone tablets, which were continued after CiPSC transplantation”
The paper relies on this without support.
The abdominal anterior rectus sheath site is safe and effective for stem-cell-derived islet transplantation in humans based on preclinical studies.
“The positive metabolic data seen in this clinical study are consistent with that seen in our preclinical study in nonhuman primates, in which we sought to identify an optimal transplant site for CiPSC-islets.21”
The paper relies on this without support.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease.
“Because T1D is an autoimmune disease”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These studies indicate that current technology can produce stemcell derived β cells capable of reversing type 1 diabetes (figure 2).”
From The future of type 1 diabetes therapy (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In this study, the cells were transplanted into the rectus sheath in the anterior abdominal wall (table 3).72”
From The future of type 1 diabetes therapy (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These induced pluripotent stem cells were generated by chemical reprogramming of the cells using small molecules to dedifferentiate the cells rather than genetic methods.”
From The future of type 1 diabetes therapy (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Another landmark event in type 1 diabetes treatment was the reversal of diabetes with β cells derived from autologous induced pluripotent stem cells in a recipient with previous liver transplantation and therefore on immunosuppression.72”
From The future of type 1 diabetes therapy (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Although stemcell therapy has shown remarkable results in a few people, 71,72 its promise as a therapy for broad application is dependent on the safe engineering of cells that avoid both alloimmunity and autoimmunity, and on production methods that meet the global demand for cellbased therapy at affordable costs.”
From The future of type 1 diabetes therapy (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Author contributions
“On day 0, 40 cryopreserved vials of CiPSC-islet cells (1.8 × 108 cells per vial) were thawed in a 37 °C water bath.”
§ Author contributions
“cells were suspended at 3 × 107 cells/mL in cryopreservation medium (5% dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) (Sigma-Aldrich, D2650), 60% stage 6 medium, 35% FBS and 10 μM Y27632). Then, a 4 mL cell suspension was aliquoted into 5 mL vials.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Discussion
“this allowed the assessment of therapeutic capacity of CiPSC-islets without adding to the patient’s immunosuppression burden”
§ Author contributions
“For CiPSC-islets transplantation, Basiliximab (20 mg) was used for induction therapy on day 0 and day 4.”
Citations
Cites
Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform
Li, H., & Durbin, R. (2009) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 · Cited by 58,607
Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors
Takahashi, K., Tanabe, K., Ohnuki, M., Narita, M., Ichisaka, T., Tomoda, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2007) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019 · Cited by 20,221
Comprehensive Integration of Single-Cell Data
Stuart, T., Butler, A., Hoffman, P., Hafemeister, C., Papalexi, E., Mauck, W. M., Hao, Y., Stoeckius, M., Smibert, P., & Satija, R. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.031 · Cited by 15,453
ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data
Wang, K., Li, M., & Hakonarson, H. H. (2010) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkq603 · Cited by 14,724
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells
Yu, J., Vodyanik, M. A., Smuga-Otto, K., Antosiewicz-Bourget, J., Frane, J. L., Tian, S., Nie, J., Jonsdottir, G. A., Ruotti, V., Stewart, R., et al. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1151526 · Cited by 10,310
Stratton, I. M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405 · Cited by 9,059
Dictionary learning for integrative, multimodal and scalable single-cell analysis
Hao, Y., Stuart, T., Kowalski, M. H., Choudhary, S., Hoffman, P., Hartman, A., Srivastava, A., Molla, G., Madad, S., Fernandez-Granda, C., et al. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01767-y · Cited by 5,631
Shapiro, A. M. J., Lakey, J. R. T., Ryan, E. A., Korbutt, G. S., Toth, E., Warnock, G. L., Kneteman, N. M., & Rajotte, R. V. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200007273430401 · Cited by 5,237
Generation of Functional Human Pancreatic β Cells In Vitro
Pagliuca, F. W., Millman, J. R., Gürtler, M., Segel, M., Van Dervort, A., Ryu, J. H., Peterson, Q. P., Greiner, D., & Melton, D. A. (2014) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.040 · Cited by 2,025
Production of pancreatic hormone–expressing endocrine cells from human embryonic stem cells
D’Amour, K. A., Bang, A. G., Eliazer, S., Kelly, O., Agulnick, A. D., Smart, N. G., Moorman, M. A., KROON, E. J., Carpenter, M. K., & Baetge, E. E. (2006) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1259 · Cited by 1,913
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pluripotent stem-cell-derived therapies in clinical trial: A 2025 update
Kirkeby, A., Main, H., & Carpenter, M. (2025) · Cell stem cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2024.12.005 · Cited by 233
Type 2 diabetes mellitus – conventional therapies and future perspectives in innovative treatment
Gieroba, B., Kryska, A., & Sroka‐Bartnicka, A. (2025) · Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.bbrep.2025.102037 · Cited by 116
“This method offers an alternative means to generate human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) that may be more suitable for therapeutic applications [177].”
Progress and challenges in developing allogeneic cell therapies
Deuse, T., & Schrepfer, S. (2025) · Cell Stem Cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2025.03.004 · Cited by 51
Advances in Cell Replacement Therapies for Diabetes
Hering, B. J., Rickels, M. R., Bellin, M. D., Millman, J. R., Tomei, A. A., Garcı́a, A. J., Shirwan, H., Stabler, C. L., Ma, M., Peng, Y., et al. (2025) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/db25-0037 · Cited by 55
Reshaping transplantation with AI, emerging technologies and xenotransplantation
Loupy, A., Preka, E., Chen, X., Wang, H., He, J., & Zhang, K. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03801-9 · Cited by 50
“…trial (ChiCTR2300072200) reported autologous transplantation of chemically induced pluripotent stem cell-derived islets beneath the anterior abdominal wall in a patient with type 1 diabetes, achieving insulin independence by day 75 and maintaining glycemic control at one year after transplant 113 .”
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, S., Du, Y., Zhang, B., Meng, G., Liu, Z., Liew, S. Y., Liang, R., Zhang, Z., Cai, X., Wu, S., Gao, W., Zhuang, D., Zou, J., Huang, H., Wang, M., Wang, X., Wang, X., Liang, T., Liu, T., Gu, J., Liu, N., Wei, Y., Ding, X., Pu, Y., Zhan, Y., Luo, Y., Sun, P., Xie, S., Yang, J., Weng, Y., Zhou, C., Wang, Z., Wang, S., Deng, H., & Shen, Z.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
- Peking University (CN)
- Nankai University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Shusen
- Deng, Hongkui
- Shen, Zhongyang
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cell
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-10
- Volume
- 187
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 6152-6164.e18
- ISSN
- 0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4402843606
- Semantic Scholar
- 53d12206f7b2371dbe9f6cc2db7448dfa741cad5
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 120 · 2025: 143 · 2024: 17
- FWCI
- 117.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 395 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Cell (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (82070805, 32288102, 82100841, NKTM2023002)
- Tianjin Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau (XB202011)
- Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Bureau (22JCZXJC00110, 2023C03019)
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020YFA0803704)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Pancreatic function and diabetes
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Pluripotent Stem Cells Research
- Keywords
- type 1 diabetes, islet transplantation, autologous transplantation, anterior rectus sheath, insulin independence, glycemic control, HbA1c
- MeSH terms
- Single-Case Studies as Topic, Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Insulin, Islets of Langerhans, Male, Islets of Langerhans Transplantation, Rectus Abdominis, Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
