MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790605990 · doi:10.1080/14779072.2018.1435274

The evolution of coronary stents

2018· review· en· W2790605990 on OpenAlexaff
Peter McKavanagh, George Zawadowski, Naveed Ahmed, Michael J.B. Kutryk

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyPercutaneous coronary interventionInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is 40 years old this year. From its humble beginnings of experimental work, PCI has transitioned over years with coronary artery stenting now a standard medical procedure performed throughout the world.Areas covered: The conversion from plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) to the present era of drug eluting stents (DES) has been driven by many technological advances and large bodies of clinical trial evidence. The journey to present day practice has seen many setbacks, such as acute vessel closure with POBA; rates of instant restenosis with bare metal stents (BMS) and more recently, high rates of stent thrombosis with bioabsorbable platforms. This work discusses POBA, why there was a need for BMS, the use of inhibiting drugs to create 1st generation DES, the change of components to 2nd generation DES, the use of absorbable drug reservoirs and platforms, and possible future directions with Prohealing Endothelial Progenitor Cell Capture Stents.Expert commentary: This paper reviews the evolution from the original pioneering work to modern day practice, highlighting landmark trials that changed practice. Modern day contemporary practice is now very safe based on the latest drug eluting stents and supported by large datasets.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations68
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207