Assessment of blood flow velocities and venous pressures using a dual-sensor guidewire in symptomatic dural sinus stenoses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateral venous sinus stenoses have been associated with idiopathic intracranial hypertension and venous pulsatile tinnitus. Venous pressure measurement is traditionally performed to assess the indications for stenting in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. However, its reliability has recently been questioned by many authors. The dual-sensor guidewire was first developed for advanced physiological assessment of fractional and coronary flow reserves in coronary artery stenoses. It allows measurement of both venous pressure and blood flow velocities. The authors used this device in 14 consecutively treated patients to explore for symptomatic lateral sinus stenosis. They found that venous blood flow was significantly accelerated inside the stenotic lesion. This acceleration, as well as the pulsatile tinnitus, resolved in all patients following stent placement. According to the authors' results, this guidewire can be helpful for establishing an indication for stenting in patients with pulsatile tinnitus and idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".