Initial Experience in Humans with a New Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate preliminary clinical experience in humans with the Recovery nitinol filter (RNF) for the inferior vena cava, especially the efficacy of the device and safety of its retrieval. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients were followed up to assess for filter efficacy and for ability to remove the filter. RESULTS: Sixteen men and 16 women aged 18-83 years (mean, 53 years) underwent treatment with the RNF. Indications for placement were recent pulmonary embolism (n = 16), recent deep venous thrombosis (n = 20), and/or prophylaxis (n = 2). Four patients had contraindications to anticoagulant therapy, and four had complications from anticoagulant therapy. The filter was successfully placed in 32 patients. In 24 (100%) of 24 patients, the filter was successfully retrieved with a jugular approach. The mean implantation period was 53 days (range, 5-134 days). Trapped thrombus was seen within the filter in seven cases. In one patient with a large trapped thrombus, the filter was noted to have migrated 4 cm cephalad. There were no episodes of pulmonary embolism or insertion-site thrombosis. CONCLUSION: This preliminary experience in humans confirms the efficacy of the RNF. It also demonstrates the feasibility and safety of retrieval up to 134 days after implantation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".