MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surgical Construction of an in Vivo Carotid Siphon Model to Test Neurovascular Devices

2004· article· en· W2007889973 on OpenAlexafffund
Stavros A. Georganos, F Guilbert, Igor Salazkin, Guylaine Gévry, Jean Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital Notre-Dame
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineNeurovascular bundleCarotid arteriesBalloonAnimal modelAngiographyRadiologySiphon (mollusc)SurgeryAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We developed an animal model to evaluate vascular trauma induced by endovascular devices that are proposed for the treatment of cerebrovascular diseases. METHODS: The model was constructed in six domestic swine by elongating the common carotid artery using interpositional grafts. Balloon catheters (n = 3), stents (n = 2), and a snare were tested 9 to 13 days after surgery. Device performance was evaluated by angiography, macroscopic photography, and histopathological examination. RESULTS: Animals tolerated the surgical procedure well, and artificial siphons were thought to provide realistic conditions for device testing. Balloon catheters induced minimal trauma, whereas coronary stents caused severe spasm or thrombosis and extensive macroscopic changes. CONCLUSION: Construction of an in vivo siphon model is feasible and potentially useful for testing neurovascular devices.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207