MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236553040 · doi:10.1002/cnm.2769

Experimental validation of more realistic computer models for stent‐graft repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms, including pre‐load assessment

2016· article· en· W2236553040 on OpenAlexaff
David P. Roy, Sophie Lerouge, Karina Inaekyan, Claude Kauffmann, Rosaire Mongrain, Gilles Soulez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStentBendingAbdominal aortic aneurysmCompression (physics)Displacement (psychology)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceSurgeryBiomedical engineeringAneurysmMedicineComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms is a less invasive alternative than classic open surgery, complications such as endoleak and kinking still need to be addressed. Numerical simulation of endovascular repair is becoming a valuable tool in stent-graft (SG) optimization, patient selection and surgical planning. The experimental and numerical forces required to produce SG deformations were compared in a range of in vivo conditions in the present study. The deformation modes investigated were: bending as well as axial, transversal and radial compressions. In particular, an original method was developed to efficiently account for radial pre-load because of the pre-compression of stents to match the graft dimensions during manufacturing. This is important in order to compute the radial force exerted on the vessel after deployment more accurately. Variations of displacement between the experimental and numerical results ranged from 1.39% for simple leg bending to 5.93% for three-point body bending. Finally, radial pre-load was modeled by increasing Young's modulus of each stent. On average, it was found that Young's modulus had to be augmented by a factor of 2. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207