MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000839619 · doi:10.1002/jbm.10387

Long‐term stability of a coronary stent coating post‐implantation

2002· article· en· W2000839619 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew L. Lewis, J. D. Furze, Sharon A. Small, J. David Robertson, Barry Higgins, Sarah A. Taylor, Donald R. Ricci

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTerm (time)Coronary stentCoatingStentBiomedical engineeringMedicineInternal medicineComposite materialRestenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A coronary stent possessing a phosphorylcholine-based polymer coating was removed from a human patient 6 months after implantation and analyzed for the presence of the coating. An atomic force microscopy (AFM) technique has been employed to scrape away several 10- micro m(2) areas on the struts of the explanted stent. Scanning-electron microscopy (SEM) and tapping-mode AFM confirmed a surface coating had been removed in each case. Cross-sectional analysis and force-of-removal measurements showed that both coating depth and hardness were characteristic of that for the phosphorylcholine- (PC-) based coating prior to implantation. AFM amplitude-phase and distance curves from the explanted stent were comparable to those obtained when an unused stent was analyzed. Furthermore, laser ablation high-resolution inductively coupled-plasma mass spectometery (LA-HR-ICP-MS) was used to detect the low level of silicon present in the PC coating after explantation. The results from these techniques confirm that the stent coating is the original PC polymer and is not of biological origin, and support the long-term stability of the coating in vivo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations50
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials ResearchSame topicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure AnalysisFrench-language works237,207