Advances in Degradable Embolic Microspheres: A State of the Art Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable efforts have been placed on the development of degradable microspheres for use in transarterial embolization indications. Using the guidance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) special controls document for the preclinical evaluation of vascular embolization devices, this review consolidates all relevant data pertaining to novel degradable microsphere technologies for bland embolization into a single reference. This review emphasizes intended use, chemical composition, degradative mechanisms, and pre-clinical safety, efficacy, and performance, while summarizing the key advantages and disadvantages for each degradable technology that is currently under development for transarterial embolization. This review is intended to provide an inclusive reference for clinicians that may facilitate an understanding of clinical and technical concepts related to this field of interventional radiology. For materials scientists, this review highlights innovative devices and current evaluation methodologies (i.e., preclinical models), and is designed to be instructive in the development of innovative/new technologies and evaluation methodologies.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it