MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130182394 · doi:10.1002/ccd.10083

Transradial coronary brachytherapy with the Novoste beta‐rail system

2002· article· en· W2130182394 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier F. Bertrand, Robert De Larochellière, Onil Gleeton, Sylvain Planté, Michel Tessier, Jean Guimond

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluoroscopyBrachytherapyClopidogrelRestenosisSurgeryStentNuclear medicineCatheterComplicationAspirinInternal medicineRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report our initial experience in 10 consecutive patients who underwent transradial coronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis using a 90Sr/Y source and the Novoste Beta-Rail system. In all patients, procedures were successfully completed using a right transradial approach. We performed the procedures with the Beta-Rail catheter using 7 Fr (Zuma II, Medtronic, MN; n = 5) or 8 Fr (Cordis, Miami, FL; n = 5) guiding catheters. All lesions were successfully dilated and no additional stent was inserted. We used a 40 mm source (n = 3) or a 60 mm source (n = 7) with manual stepping in four cases. In three cases, we did one stepping, and in one case, we did three steppings. The mean dwell time was 195 plus minus 44 sec. The mean delivered dose was 23 +/- 3 Gy at 2 mm distance from the source. No radiation treatment was interrupted. Mean fluoroscopy time was 26 +/- 13 min. Procedural success was achieved in all patients. Three patients had mild CK elevations (< 3 times upper normal limit). All patients were pretreated with clopidogrel (300 mg) and combined treatment with aspirin + clopidogrel is to be continued for at least 1 year. Clinical follow-up up to 3 months has not yielded any complication and all patients have remained free from angina.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207