Testing the Medina embolization device in experimental aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Medina embolization device (MED) is a novel, braided self-expanding endovascular device designed to occlude aneurysms by constructing an in situ intrasaccular flow diverter. Although a single device can be positioned at the neck of simple spherical in vitro aneurysms, the best way to occlude more complex in vivo aneurysms (using multiple MEDs or a combination of MEDs and platinum coils) is currently unknown. METHODS: Fifty-two aneurysms of 3 different types were created in 31 canines, yielding 48 patent aneurysms. Treatments were randomly allocated by drawing lots: group 1, MEDs alone (n = 16); group 2, MEDs plus standard platinum coils (n = 16); and group 3, control aneurysms treated with coils alone (n = 16). Angiographic results were scored and compared immediately following treatment completion and at 3 months. Specimens were photographed and the extent of neointimal closure of the aneurysmal neck scored, followed by histopathological analyses. RESULTS: Angiographic scores of 0 or 1 (occlusion or near occlusion) were initially obtained in 2 of 16 (12.5%, 95% CI 1.6%-38.3%) group 1 (MEDs alone), 3 of 16 (18.7%, 95% CI 4%-45.6%) group 2 (MEDs plus coils), and 10 of 16 (62.5%, 95% CI 35.4%-84.8%) group 3 (coils alone) aneurysms (p = 0.005). At 3 months, scores of 0 or 1 were found in 11 of 16 (68.7%, 95% CI 41.3%-89.0%) group 1, 9 of 16 (56.2%, 95% CI 29.9%-80.2%) group 2, and 8 of 16 (50%, 95% CI 24.7%-75.3%) group 3 aneurysms (p = 0.82). Neointimal scores were similar for the 3 treated groups (p = 0.66). CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of experimental aneurysms with MEDs or MEDs and coils showed angiographic occlusion and neointimal scores at 3 months that were similar to those achieved with standard platinum coiling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".