MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microvessels in Chronic Total Occlusions: Pathways for Successful Guidewire Crossing?

2005· review· en· W2019912088 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley H. Strauss, Amit Segev, Graham A. Wright, Beiping Qiang, Nigel R. Munce, Kevan Anderson, General Leung, Alexander Dick, Renu Virmani, Jagdish Butany

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interventional Cardiology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionPathophysiologyMicrovesselCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseRevascularizationArteryExtracellular matrixRadiologyInternal medicineAngiogenesisMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arterial chronic total occlusions (CTO) are a common and clinically relevant problem in patients with coronary artery disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates in a wide range of CTO are low, primarily due to inability of guidewire crossing. The pathophysiology of CTO is poorly understood and limits our ability to introduce innovative therapies. Recent studies from our laboratory have suggested that microvessel formation within arterial CTO is a complex process with temporal and regional differences. Moreover, there is evidence from pilot studies that the presence of either microvessels or the particular extracellular matrix environment in the adjacent perivascular tissue can facilitate guidewire crossing and successful PCI. Currently, studies are underway in our experimental CTO model to delineate the pathophysiology of microvessel formation in CTO and its potential role in PCI.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interventional CardiologySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207