MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264579393 · doi:10.1159/000441920

Inadvertent Stent Retriever Detachment: A Multicenter Case Series and Review of Device Experience FDA Reports

2015· article· en· W2264579393 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Neurology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolitaire Cryptographic AlgorithmMedicineStentFood and drug administrationSurgeryAdverse effectComplicationStroke (engine)OcclusionIschemic strokeCardiologyInternal medicineIschemiaMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical thrombectomy using retrievable stents or stent retriever devices has become the mainstay of intra-arterial therapy for acute ischemic stroke. The recent publication of a series of positive trials supporting intra-arterial therapy as standard of care for the treatment of large vessel occlusion will likely further increase stent retriever use. Rarely, premature stent detachment during thrombectomy may be encountered. In our multicenter case series, we found a rate of detachment of less than 1% (n = 7/1,067), and all were first-generation Solitaire FR devices. A review of the US Food and Drug Administration database of device experience yielded 90 individual adverse reports of detachment. There were 82, 1 and 7 detachments of Solitaire FR (first generation), Solitaire FR2 (second generation) and Trevo devices, respectively. We conclude with a brief overview of the technical and procedural considerations which may be helpful in avoiding this rare complication.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.283 · 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