MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318283461 · doi:10.4244/eijv6i7a136

Autologous cell therapy for enhanced endovascular repair after coronary stent implantation

2011· letter· en· W2318283461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emanuele Barbato, William Wijns

Bibliographic record

VenueEuroIntervention · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStentSurgeryProsthesis designRadiologyProsthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A little history Michael Kutryk is the name of the interventional cardiologist and scientist who had this dream. As early as the late 90s, Michael had the vision that it could be most desirable to heal strut coverage specifically with functional endothelial cells in order to improve the biocompatibility of metallic stents. The concept of designing a “prohealing” device with accelerated restoration of endothelial continuity was born at least at first in the mind of its inventor, but was quickly supported by bench and preclinical experiments. By this time, Kutryk had left Canada to join the group at the Thoraxcenter in Rotterdam as a post-doctoral fellow (Figure 1). During this period, Patrick Serruys was experimenting with local drug delivery with sweating balloons and, needless to say, he was immediately taken with Kutryk’s idea. Perhaps somewhat naively, they hypothesised that endothelial progenitor cell capture could prevent at one and the same time both thrombosis and restenosis. It should be remembered that in those early days of stenting, the issues were immediate stent thrombosis and early restenosis, at rates of 20% each! Nobody at that time was anticipating that late thrombotic events would plague the future anti-restenosis solutions, initially vascular brachytherapy and now drug-elution. The Genous technology invented by Kutryk and embraced by Serruys was developed and supported by Orbus Medical Technologies, and later acquired by Neich, an Asian-based company to form Orbus-Neich. Major research and development efforts eventually led to the First-In-Man trial that was published in 2005. The illustration (Figure 2) depicting the principles of the therapy was indeed very convincing, to the point that it was eventually included in the patient informed consent document for further studies. It shows how the stent is covered with a biocompatible matrix to which murine, monoclonal, anti-human CD34+ antibodies are covalently attached. The antibody is specific to the surface antigens, present on circulating endothelial progenitor cells creating an immuno-affinity surface for preferentially capturing these circulating cells. CE mark approval was obtained on August 11, 2005. The HEALING clinical trial program was designed and indeed completed, and publications appeared at an increasing pace. The device also underwent a number of technical iterations including the use of a cobaltchromium stent platform, to replace the bio-engineered R-stent.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueEuroInterventionSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207