Flow Diverters Can Occlude Aneurysms and Preserve Arterial Branches: A New Experimental Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: FDs are new intracranial stents designed to occlude aneurysms while preserving flow to jailed arterial branches. We tested this fundamental principle in a new aneurysm model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Canine lateral wall aneurysms, featuring a branch located immediately opposite the aneurysm, were created in 16 animals to study the effects on aneurysm or branch occlusion using single HP stents (n = 4), 2 overlapping HP stents (n = 4), or an FD (n = 8). Two other animals, in which an efferent arterial branch was anastomosed to the aneurysm fundus, were also treated with FDs. Angiographic results after deployment, at 2 weeks, and at 3 months were scored using an ordinal scale. The metal porosity of the FSS and the amount of FSS neointima formation was determined by postmortem photography. RESULTS: FDs led to better angiographic occlusion scores compared with HP stents (P = .026). FDs were significantly more likely to occlude the aneurysm than the branch (P = .01). When the branch was switched to originate from the aneurysm fundus, the FDs became ineffective (0/2). Neointimal closure of the aneurysm ostium was significantly better with FDs than with single or double HP stents (P = .039). Angiographic occlusion correlated with metallic porosity and neointimal tissue coverage (Spearman ρ = -0.81; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, flow diverters occluded lateral wall aneurysms more readily than branches. Metal device porosity strongly influenced the occlusion rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".