Biodegradable Metals for Cardiovascular Stent Application: Interests and New Opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last decade, biodegradable metallic stents have been developed and investigated as alternatives for the currently-used permanent cardiovascular stents. Degradable metallic materials could potentially replace corrosion-resistant metals currently used for stent application as it has been shown that the role of stenting is temporary and limited to a period of 6-12 months after implantation during which arterial remodeling and healing occur. Although corrosion is generally considered as a failure in metallurgy, the corrodibility of certain metals can be an advantage for their application as degradable implants. The candidate materials for such application should have mechanical properties ideally close to those of 316L stainless steel which is the gold standard material for stent application in order to provide mechanical support to diseased arteries. Non-toxicity of the metal itself and its degradation products is another requirement as the material is absorbed by blood and cells. Based on the mentioned requirements, iron-based and magnesium-based alloys have been the investigated candidates for biodegradable stents. This article reviews the recent developments in the design and evaluation of metallic materials for biodegradable stents. It also introduces the new metallurgical processes which could be applied for the production of metallic biodegradable stents and their effect on the properties of the produced metals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it