In vivo Evaluation of Polyester Arterial Grafts Coated with Albumin: The Role and Importance of Cross-Linking Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous in vitro studies have predicted that the type of chemical used to cross-link albumin-coated polyester arterial prostheses may influence the rate of bioerosion of the albumin layer in vivo. This study has confirmed that the healing process of this type of compound prosthesis does indeed depend on the nature and concentration of the cross-linking agent used. Four series of implantations in the thoracic aorta of dogs for scheduled periods for 4 h up to 6 months were conducted using 1.6% glutaraldehyde, 2.5% glutaraldehyde and 0.2 M carbodiimide as the alternative cross-linking agents plus a nonalbuminated preclotted polyester prosthesis which served as the control. The pathology of the explanted grafts revealed that in the short and medium term the rate of healing and the extent of tissue ingrowth was dependent initially on the presence of and later on the rate of bioerosion of the albumin layer. After 3 months in situ, the prostheses coated with albumin cross-linked with 1.6% glutaraldehyde and carbodiimide had healed more rapidly and were invaded by more extensive tissue ingrowth than the one cross-linked with 2.5% glutaraldehyde or the preclotted control. Moreover, the migration of cells over the carbodiimide-treated surface was the most fully developed and most regularly organized of all four series. Immunostaining revealed that the presence of glutaraldehyde induced an inflammatory response which failed to support the growth of normal luminal cells with the endothelial phenotype.
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) | 0.001 | 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".