Beta Radiation and Inhibition of Recanalization After Coil Embolization of Canine Arteries and Experimental Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Beta radiation prevents recanalization after coil embolization. We sought to determine the effects of varying coil caliber, length, activity of 32P per centimeter of coil or per volume, and spatial distribution of coils on recanalization. METHODS: We studied the angiographic evolution of 81 canine maxillary, cervical, and vertebral arteries implanted with a variety of nonradioactive (n=29 arteries) or radioactive (n=52) devices. We compared 1- or 2-caliber 0.015 or 0.010 coils ion-implanted or not with 3 different activity levels (0.05 to 0.08, 0.06 to 0.12, 0.18 to 0.32 microCi/cm) of 32P and totaling 4, 8, and 16 cm in length for the same arterial volume. We also compared inhibition of recanalization by beta radiation delivered by stents, after coil occlusion proximal to or within the stent, with that delivered by coils placed within nonradioactive stents. We finally studied the angiographic evolution of canine lateral wall carotid aneurysms treated with 1 or 2 stents of various activity levels positioned inside the parent artery across the neck. Animals were killed at 4 and 12 weeks for macroscopic photography and pathological examination. RESULTS: All arteries (29 of 29) occluded with nonradioactive devices were recanalized, while 49 of 52 arteries (94%) implanted with 32P devices were occluded at 4 weeks. All aneurysms treated with stents, radioactive or not, demonstrated residual filling of the sac or of channels leading to the aneurysms at follow-up angiography at 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The recanalization process found in the canine arterial occlusion model is minimally affected by coil caliber, number, and length or packing density. Beta radiation reliably inhibits this process, but thrombosis is an essential condition for the efficacy of a radioactive coil strategy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".