Comparison of a Plasma-based Composite Biologic Sealant With Fibrin Glue (Tisseel??) for Vascular Anastomoses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biologic sealants are needed in numerous, more and more demanding, procedures--especially with developments occurring in endovascular and laparoscopic vascular techniques. An initial pilot study in dogs showed that a 4-cm aortotomy closed with a polyester patch sutured in place by a 4-mm-spaced running suture consistently led to massive hemorrhage. We then designed a study using five dogs where two aortotomies were done to compare the effect of Tisseel to that of an autologous sealant prepared in our laboratory. Arterial pressures and heparinization were maintained throughout the surgical procedure. Both biologic sealants prevented hemorrhage from the arteriotomy at unclamping. Macroscopic and histologic assessments were performed. At killing, one week later, the autologous sealant exhibited less blood saturation of the collagen sponge compared with Tisseel. The use of autologous plasma combined with other adhesive components could be an efficient alternative to allogenic fibrin glue. Further studies are needed to confirm these observations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".