MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408376819

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold thrombosis in an all-comer patient population: single-center experience.

2015· article· en· W2408376819 on OpenAlexaff
Lorenzo Azzalini, Philippe L. L’Allier

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeThrombosisSingle CenterInterventional cardiologyPopulationDrug-eluting stentStentInternal medicineSurgeryConcomitantCardiologyRestenosisMyocardial infarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experience with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs) outside clinical trials is scarce, and data from "real-world" use are needed. In particular, there are few data on scaffold thrombosis (ST). We report our experience with ST in our all-comer BVS population (n = 339) and review the literature on the topic. Four cases (1.2%) of early definite ST were identified. Multiple risk factors were present in all 4 cases. Optical coherence tomography ruled out mechanical causes of ST in 2 cases, whereas scaffold underexpansion was observed in 1 case. Twelve BVS series have been published to date. Total sample size includes 1393 patients, with 13 cases of definite ST (0.9%), which is similar to long-term second-generation drug-eluting stent thrombosis rate (1.0%). Eleven of these cases were early ST (8 during the first week). Six of these 11 cases occurred in patients who received a BVS in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It can be speculated that the prothrombotic milieu of ACS, coupled with the unfavorable peristrut rheology of BVSs, might promote ST early after implantation, particularly if other concomitant risk factors are present.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207