Stent-Graft Placement for the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent development of aortic stent-grafts has brought the management of thoracic aortic diseases into the realm of interventional radiology. Stent-graft placement is now an alternative to surgery for the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, ulcers, and fistulas and is sometimes indicated in cases of mycotic aneurysm, posttraumatic aortic rupture, or thoracic descending aortic dissection. Pretreatment imaging is crucial for evaluating patient eligibility, selecting the appropriate stent-graft, and planning the intervention. Stent-graft treatment of long atherosclerotic aneurysms, lesions close to aortic branch vessels, and aortic dissections is subject to technical pitfalls, and adverse events such as endoleaks, stent migration or misplacement, aortic perforation, and vascular trauma will require specific interventions, although they occur in only a minority of patients. Thoracic stent-graft placement in good surgical candidates remains controversial because long-term results are unknown. However, short-term morbidity and mortality rates from endovascular treatment compare favorably with those from surgery, and stent-graft placement is proving to be a safe, minimally invasive, and effective treatment for thoracic aortic diseases and is already the best option in many affected patients who are poor surgical candidates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".