Prolonged versus brief balloon inflation during arterial angioplasty for de novo atherosclerotic disease: protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angioplasty is a fundamental treatment for atherosclerotic disease in the cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular beds. However, the optimal duration of balloon inflation has not been identified. Our study will investigate whether prolonged angioplasty balloon inflation of at least 1 min duration, when compared with brief inflation, affects residual stenosis after arterial angioplasty. METHODS: In compliance with PRISMA, two independent reviewers will conduct a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, trial registries, grey literature, and ancestry and citation search. Data abstraction, quantitative, and quantitative meta-analysis will be performed according to pre-specified criteria. The primary outcome is residual stenosis immediately after initial angioplasty; however, secondary outcomes will include multiple short and long term pre-specific clinical and radiographic outcomes. Risk of bias, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses are planned. DISCUSSION: Despite the ubiquitous use of angioplasty in atherosclerotic disease and multiple trials investigating the ideal balloon inflation duration, there are no systematic reviews evaluating prolonged angioplasty balloon inflation. Currently synthesized evidence is insufficient to confidently direct clinical decision-making, and the current variation in operator preference of balloon angioplasty duration suggests ongoing clinical equipoise. Given the known availability of current primary evidence, our study intends to synthesize the evidence and guide future clinical decision making and investigation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018092702.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".