Porcine model of intracoronary pulverization of stent struts by rotablation atherectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of rotablation atherectomy in a suboptimally expanded stent. METHODS: Seven pigs underwent suboptimal stent expansion in the left anterior descending coronary. Pulverization of the stent struts was performed by rotablation atherectomy with two different burr sizes. Two types of control porcine models were used: pigs with fully expanded stents and pigs without stents. Continuous electrocardiogram readings as well as microscopic and radiologic analysis of cardiac tissue were performed. RESULTS: Rotablation atherectomy reduces the suboptimally expanded stent by (26.95 ± 5.03)%. Ninety-five percent of the metal microparticles, imbedded in the suboptimally expanded stent group cardiac tissue, are less than 15 μm. Transient vasospasm and ST segments elevations were observed during rotablation atherectomy, which returned to basal conditions at the end of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of using rotablation atherectomy to pulverize stent struts in a suboptimally expanded stent.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".