Biocompatibility and Biostability of Metallic Endovascular Implants: State of the Art and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than a million metallic endovascular devices are implanted each year, but the quest for the perfect material continues. The importance of interfacial properties in the overall biocompatibility of metals and alloys has been recognized for a long time. In particular, these properties modulate the hemocompatibility of devices in contact with blood and, in turn, strongly influence implantation outcomes. In this article, the relative properties of metallic materials commonly used in endovascular applications are reviewed. Particular emphasis is given to the corrosion behavior of metallic endovascular materials and the specific surface treatments used in the production processes. Issues relative to corrosion assays will also be reviewed in terms of their relevance to in vivo applications. The potential adverse effects of degradation products with respect to endovascular applications will be described. Finally, this review addresses future perspectives of metallic devices in endovascular procedures in view of the recent promises of antiproliferative strategies that are likely to profoundly modify current procedures.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".