Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm, Juxtarenal Aneurysm, Fenestrated Endografts, Branched Endografts, and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of endovascular devices to treat aneurysms that abut or involve the visceral vessels has occurred in an effort to reduce the significant procedural morbidity and mortality associated with conventional repair. To accomplish this, three systems have been trialed. The first technique was developed to treat juxtarenal aneurysms and involves the placement of customized fenestrations strategically placed within the fabric of the graft. These are aligned with the ostia of the visceral vessels incorporated by the repair and supplemented by the placement of a balloon expandable stent. In a similar fashion, aneurysms that involve the visceral vessels can be treated with a fenestrated graft where the fenestration is reinforced with a nitinol ring. This is then mated with a balloon-expandable stentgraft, allowing the devices to seal at the level of the nitinol ring. An alternative means of incorporating the visceral vessels is to use directional branches where one or more additional limbs (typically 8 mm) are anastomosed to the aortic graft, through which access into the visceral vessel is attained. Mating stentgrafts for the later design can be of a self-expanding or balloon expandable nature. The experience with fenestrated devices is mature and associated with a low perioperative mortality (<2%) without many long-term complications. The treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms with branches has provided us with optimism regarding the technique, but results are only short term in nature. Further device development is ongoing and dissemination of this technology is now occurring in Europe, Australia and Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".