The effect of implantation of aortic stents on compliance and blood flow. An experimental study in pigs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balloon dilation of coarctation of the aorta has been found to be an effective modality for treatment. Recently, in the older child and adult, implantation of endovascular stents has been considered a clinical alternative to dilation alone. Little is known, however, of the effect of implantation of stents on aortic compliance. To investigate this impact of implantation, we studied 18 piglets, divided into experimental and control groups. At median weight of 14 kg, 2 pairs of ultrasonic crystals were implanted on the aortic wall. After 1 week, all animals underwent catheterization. In the experimental group, a 3 cm long balloon expandable stent was implanted in the descending thoracic aorta between the pairs of crystals. Measurements of arterial pressure and dimensions were performed before implantation and immediately thereafter, and at follow-up catheterization. The index of stiffness, beta, and the the elastic modulus of aortic pressure-strain, were calculated as indexes of arterial compliance. The change in compliance during the period of study was not different between groups. At follow-up, no difference was observed between groups in the velocity of the aortic pulse wave, the augmentation index, or the maximum velocity of flow of blood. The stents remained patent and did not affect aortic growth or medial wall thickness. There was no difference between groups in levels of plasma renin activity and serum aldosterone. In this animal model studied over the short term, therefore, implantation of stents does not affect aortic compliance. Further studies are required to elucidate the long term effects of stents on the hemodynamics affecting the aortic wall and local flow dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".