High-Resolution Scanning Fiber Angioscopy as an Adjuvant to Fluoroscopy During Endovascular Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of high-resolution angioscopy during common endovascular interventions. METHODS: A 3.7-F scanning fiber angioscope was used in 6 Yorkshire pigs to image branch vessel selection, subintimal dissection, wire snaring, and stent placement. The angioscope was introduced in a coaxial fashion within a standard 6-F guide catheter. A clear field of view was provided using continuous heparinized saline flush through the outer guide catheter. The flush flow rate was manually adjusted to provide clear imaging depending on the diameter of the vessel and local blood flow conditions. RESULTS: The scanning fiber angioscope was compatible with off-the-shelf catheters and devices commonly used in peripheral and aortic interventions. Video-rate, high-resolution images were obtained during all the interventions tested and provided information that was complementary to simultaneously acquired fluoroscopy. The scanning fiber angioscope was able to detect subintimal dissection and branch vessel stent coverage with higher resolution than fluoroscopy alone. CONCLUSION: Endoluminal imaging with the scanning fiber angioscope is feasible with current endovascular devices and provides additional relevant information that cannot be assessed fluoroscopically. The scanning fiber angioscope represents a novel optical platform on which new endovascular techniques may be developed that will minimize radiation and contrast doses for patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".