Y-Crossing of Braided Stents with Stents and Flow Diverters Does Not Cause Significant Stenosis in Bench-Top Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Y-stent placement to treat bifurcation aneurysms requires the second device to cross the confines of the first stent, with concerns regarding the formation of stenosis of the second device at the site of crossing. Various braided stents and flow diverters (FDs) were deployed to cross through a high porosity braided stent, in a Y configuration, with the ends of the devices inserted in plastic tubes of various diameters, leaving the mid-portion free to expand. The ensuing constructs were photographed, paying attention to the degree of stenosis, if any, created where the second device crosses the first stent. Experiments were repeated selecting different zones of the first stent as the site of crossing for the second device, different tube diameters, and changing the angle of the bifurcation. Crossing the first stent did not cause the second stent to become significantly stenosed in any case. Crossing through the transition or expansion zone of the first device had no influence on results. Different bifurcation angles had no influence on the occurrence of stenosis. Y-stent placement to treat arterial bifurcations using braided self-expanding stents and FDs does not lead to significant stenosis in bench-top studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".