Vascular response to a third generation everolimus-eluting stent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In a non-injured porcine coronary artery model, the aim was to evaluate vascular compatibility of the novel platinum chromium everolimus-eluting PROMUS Element stent as compared to the following control stents: everolimus-eluting PROMUS (XIENCE V), bare metal Element, and polymer-only Element. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stent pairs (n=228) evenly distributed among the four stent types were implanted in overlap configuration in 79 pigs at a targeted stent-to-artery ratio of 1.1:1. Similar numbers were explanted at each of 7, 30, 90, 180, and 270 days for pathological analysis. No stent-related mortality or morbidity was observed. There were no stent occlusions or strut fractures. The PROMUS Element was more radiopaque than PROMUS (relative densities 9.9 and 9.1, respectively) and demonstrated at all time points vascular compatibility similar to that of the control stents for endothelial cell coverage, inflammatory response, and neointima formation. At 30 days, parastrut fibrin was mild but greater (P<0.0001) for the drug-eluting stents than either for the bare metal or the polymer-only Element; however, by 90 days the fibrin had dissipated. CONCLUSIONS: In the non-injured porcine coronary artery model, the PROMUS Element demonstrated vascular compatibility equivalent to PROMUS and the bare metal and polymer-only stents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".