Multi-objective optimisation of material properties and strut geometry for poly(L-lactic acid) coronary stents using response surface methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coronary stents for treating atherosclerosis are traditionally manufactured from metallic alloys. However, metal stents permanently reside in the body and may trigger undesirable immunological responses. Bioresorbable polymer stents can provide a temporary scaffold that resorbs once the artery heals but are mechanically inferior, requiring thicker struts for equivalent radial support, which may increase thrombosis risk. This study addresses the challenge of designing mechanically effective but sufficiently thin poly(L-lactic acid) stents through a computational approach that optimises material properties and stent geometry. Forty parametric stent designs were generated: cross-sectional area (post-dilation), foreshortening, stent-to-artery ratio and radial collapse pressure were evaluated computationally using finite element analysis. Response surface methodology was used to identify performance trade-offs by formulating relationships between design parameters and response variables. Multi-objective optimisation was used to identify suitable stent designs from approximated Pareto fronts and an optimal design is proposed that offers comparable performance to designs in clinical practice. In summary, a computational framework has been developed that has potential application in the design of high stiffness, thin strut polymeric stents that contend with the performance of their metallic counterparts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".