Comparing radial and femoral access for coronary angiography and interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac catheterization and coronary intervention via the radial approach is increasingly adopted as the preferred vascular access to avoid transfemoral vascular complications. Recent clinical trials have confirmed that radial access reduces vascular complications and local bleeding with similar procedural efficacy. Transradial access has inherent technical challenges, including smaller vessel size of the radial artery, arterial spasm and tortuosity involving the radial and subclavian arteries, which may undermine the procedural success of this approach. A number of strategies have been reported to minimize complications of radial access, including the use of hydrophilic introducer sheaths and smaller sheath sizes, administration of nitroglycerin and unfractionated heparin during the procedure, patent hemostasis of the radial artery and careful patient selection. Operators experienced in transradial percutaneous coronary intervention can achieve comparable clinical outcomes to the transfemoral approach and minimize vascular complications. Radial artery access is likely to become widely accepted as the preferred percutaneous coronary intervention approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".