MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974091763 · doi:10.1088/0960-1317/23/6/065001

A recoil resilient lumen support, design, fabrication and mechanical evaluation

2013· article· en· W1974091763 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Mehdizadeh, Mohamed Sultan Mohamed Ali, Kenichi Takahata, Said F. Al-Sarawi, Derek Abbott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micromechanics and Microengineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecoilMaterials scienceStentFinite element methodRigidity (electromagnetism)Compression (physics)Elastic recoilStructural engineeringFabricationBiomedical engineeringLumen (anatomy)Sawtooth waveComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stents are artificial implants that provide scaffolding to a cavity inside the body. This paper presents a new luminal device for reducing the mechanical failure of stents due to recoil, which is one of the most important issues in stenting. This device, which we call a recoil-resilient ring (RRR), is utilized standalone or potentially integrated with existing stents to address the problem of recoil. The proposed structure aims to minimize the need for high-pressure overexpansion that can induce intra-luminal trauma and excess growth of vascular tissue causing later restenosis. The RRR is an overlapped open ring with asymmetrical sawtooth structures that are intermeshed. These teeth can slide on top of each other, while the ring is radially expanded, but interlock step-by-step so as to keep the final expanded state against compressional forces that normally cause recoil. The RRRs thus deliver balloon expandability and, when integrated with a stent, bring both radial rigidity and longitudinal flexibility to the stent. The design of the RRR is investigated through finite element analysis (FEA), and then the devices are fabricated using micro-electro-discharge machining of 200-m-thick Nitinol sheet. The standalone RRR is balloon expandable in vitro by 5-7 Atm in pressure, which is well within the recommended in vivo pressure ranges for stenting procedures. FEA compression tests indicate 13× less reduction of the cross-sectional area of the RRR compared with a typical stainless steel stent. These results also show perfect elastic recovery of the RRR after removal of the pressure compared to the remaining plastic deformations of the stainless steel stent. On the other hand, experimental loading tests show that the fabricated RRRs have 2.8× radial stiffness compared to a two-column section of a commercial stent while exhibiting comparable elastic recovery. Furthermore, testing of in vitro expansion in a mock artery tube shows around 2.9% recoil, approximately 5-11× smaller than the recoil reported for commercial stents. These experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the device design for the targeted luminal support and stenting applications. © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Micromechanics and MicroengineeringSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207