Bare, Bio-Active and Hydrogel-Coated Coils for Endovascular Treatment of Experimentally Induced Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endovascular treatments of cerebral aneurysms with bare platinum coils have a higher rate of recurrence compared to surgical clipping. This may be related to failed vessel wall reconstruction since histological and scanning electron microscopy results following embolization failed to demonstrate neoendothelialization over the aneurysm neck. The present study tried to elucidate whether the use of modified coils resulted in a better rate of reconstructing the vessel wall over the aneurysm neck in experimental aneurysms. Aneurysms were created in 20 rabbits by intraluminal elastase incubation of the common carotid artery. Five animals each were assigned to the following groups: untreated, bare platinum coils, bioactive coils with polyglycolic/polylactic acid coating, and hydrogel-coated platinum coils. After 12 months, angiography, histology and scanning electron microscopy was performed. No neoendothelial layer was visualized in the bioactive and bare coil groups with a tendency to an increased layering of fibroblasts along the bioactive coils at the aneurysm fundus. However, at the aneurysm neck perfused clefts were present and although a thin fibrinous layer was present over some coils, no bridging neointimal or neoendothial layer was noted over different coils. Following loose Hydrogel coiling, a complete obliteration of the aneurysm was present with neoendothelialization present over different coil loops. The study demonstrates that with surface coil modifications complete and stable aneurysm obliteration may become possible. A smooth and dense surface over the aneurysm neck may be necessary for endothelial cells to bridge the aneurysm neck and to lead to vessel wall reconstruction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".