Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to determine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the new tubular (Helistent) stent (Hexacath, France) in patients with coronary artery disease. Patients were prospectively included in a multicenter French registry: acute results and 6-month target lesion revascularization rate were assessed. A total of 628 stents were implanted in 527 patients (616 lesions). Mean age was 64 +/- 11 years. Predilatation was performed in 77% of cases. The stent was successfully deployed in 99.4% of attempted lesions. Three patients died during the hospital stay and 10 patients developed myocardial infarction. Angiographic stent thrombosis rate was 1.1%. There was no need for urgent cardiac surgery during hospital stay. Six-month clinical follow-up was obtained in 95% of patients; target lesion revascularization rate was 8.3%. Eight patients (1.6%) (extracardiac death in three patients) died and three patients (0.6%) developed myocardial infarction. In conclusion, the Helistent stent appears safe and effective in minimizing acute complications of elective coronary interventions. Six-month major cardiac events were rare and clinical restenosis was low (< 10%).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".