Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dilatation for Pulmonary Vein Stenosis in Pediatric Patients. Maximizing Effectiveness.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcome of stent implantation and redilatation was investigated in 4 pediatric patients with 7 stenotic lesions of the pulmonary vein (PV), paying particular attention to late neointimal proliferation. The minimal diameter of the lesions increased from 0.8-3.6 (2.3+/-1.1) mm to 3.6-8.4 (5.1+/-1.6) mm immediately after stent implantation. Although the pressure gradient across the lesion was not measured in patient 4, in patients 1-3, it decreased from 4-34 (18+/-13) mmHg to 3-15 (7+/-4) mmHg. Except for case 4, who achieved a lesion diameter of 8.4 mm after initial stent dilatation, the other 6 lesions all restenosed within a few months, with an increasing pressure gradient. One patient with multiple PV stenoses associated with persistent severe pulmonary hypertension died suddenly. However, repeat dilatations were effective in all other lesions. Furthermore, in one lesion in patient 1, no serious restenosis developed for 20 months after the lesion was dilated up to 5.6 mm. Although further follow-up is mandatory, the final stent diameter within a vessel may determine long-term patency, and aggressive redilatation may be crucial for successful therapy of such a difficult disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".