Wondering PTCA Wire: Retrieval by Tangling Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 38-year-old man underwent coronary angiography in our institution due to acute myocardial infarction as part of pharmaco-invasive strategy following thrombolysis. The patient showed total occlusion of mid left anterior descending (LAD) artery which was tortuous and calcified. The planned treatment was percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of culprit artery with wire being "jailed" in obtuse marginal branch of left circumflex artery (LCX) as left main was short and because of lesion characteristics. After successful stent implantation in the LAD, the "jailed" wire fractured as guiding catheter got deeply intubated as stent was being deployed in LAD. Initially, two balance middle weight (BMW) wires were used to retrieve but failed. Wire was wondering as it moved to proximal LCX, left main, partly into aortic sinus, sometimes proximal LAD and finally to LCX again during retrieval. Then it was decided to use tangling technique with the help of three BMW wires acting as rescue wires. The proximal ends of all three wires were inserted together in a torque device which were firmly screwed and rotated 40 - 50 times in circular pattern. During this rotational motion, the broken segment was tangled within these rescue wires and all four wires were removed together.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".