MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Paclitaxel-coated balloon study: quantitative coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography evaluation in a swine in-stent stenosis model

2011· article· en· W2139233920 on OpenAlexaff
Akihiro Sumida, Alexander Nikanorov, Toshiro Shinke, Jiaqi Li, Spencer B. King, N. Chronos, Dongming Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStentRestenosisOptical coherence tomographyStenosisBalloonCoronary arteriesPaclitaxelNuclear medicineCoronary artery diseaseAngioplastyRadiologyCoronary stentArteryCardiologyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Drug coated balloons (DCBs) have shown efficacy for treatment of coronary artery disease. In PEPCAD II ISR trial, paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) reduced in-stent restenosis (ISR) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). Here we evaluated the efficacy of PCB in porcine ISR model. Materials and methods 32 coronary arteries (LAD: n=12, LCX: n=11, RCA: n=9) of 12 Yorkshire pigs were assigned to two (2) groups randomly. PCB (SeQuent, length 20 mm, n=16) or non-coating balloon (NCB, length 20 mm n=16) were inflated for 60 s with B:A 1.2:1 followed by BMS (length 12 mm) implantation (S/A 1.5:1) within the target region. At 28 days, animals underwent restudy for the assessment of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Results There were no differences between groups among all of the parameters measured by QCA and OCT. QCA late luminal loss was 1.27±0.57 mm for PCB and 1.11±0.52 mm for NCB (p=NS). Similarly, the percent of in-stent stenosis was 34.5±15.0% for PCB and 36.2±13.6% for NCB (p=NS). OCT image analysis, showed that the mean thickness of neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) on stent strut was 585±219 μm for PCB compared to 661±183 μm for NCB (p=NS), and the percent of in-stent area stenosis was 43.2±14.9% for PCB, and 49.5±11.5% for NCB (p=NS). Conclusions In the current experimental setting, we didn't observed inhibition of neointimal formation response to PCB therapy as determined by both QCA and OCT measurement.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207