MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intravascular and intracardiac stents used in congenital heart disease

2001· review· en· W2077537786 on OpenAlexaff
Mataichi Okubo, Lee Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRestenosisStentIntracardiac injectionBalloon dilationIntimal hyperplasiaRadiologySurgeryCardiologyBalloonInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intravascular or intracardiac stenoses occur in many forms of congenital heart disease or after attempted surgical repair. Although balloon dilation is one option for management, restenosis can occur due to elastic recoil immediately after the procedure. To address to such stenotic lesions, many reports support implanting endovascular stents to provide a framework for vessel expansion. Both balloon-expandable fixed tubular mesh stainless steel devices, and self-expandable stents have had an extensive clinical application. In pediatric patients, stents are used for a variety of stenoses, such as systemic venous obstruction pathways (eg, Mustard, Fontan baffle, or bidirectional cavopulmonary connections), pulmonary artery, right ventricular to pulmonary conduits, aortic coarctation, the arterial duct, aorticopulmonary collaterals, or postoperative systemic to pulmonary shunts. Because of improvements in device profile, implantation rates have increased. Complications such as stent fracture, migration, aneurysm formation, and in-stent restenosis occur but only rarely. This latter event may be because of intimal hyperplasia and/or continued vessel (and patient) growth related to the stent diameter. As such, some instances require redilation to manage the acquired lesion. Stent application has importantly altered management algorithms in congenital heart disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207