The blood compatibility challenge. Part 1: Blood-contacting medical devices: The scope of the problem
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood-contacting medical devices are an integral part of modern medicine. Such devices may be used for only a few hours or may be implanted for life. Despite advances in biomaterial science, clotting on medical devices remains a common problem. Systemic administration of antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulants is often needed to reduce the risk of clotting. Although effective, such therapy increases the risk of bleeding, which can be fatal. This chapter (a) describes some of the commonly used blood-contacting devices and their potential complications, (b) provides an overview of the mechanisms that drive device-associated clotting, and (c) reviews the strategies employed to attenuate clotting on blood-contacting medical devices. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: This paper is part 1 of a series of 4 reviews discussing the problem of biomaterial associated thrombogenicity. The objective was to highlight features of broad agreement and provide commentary on those aspects of the problem that were subject to dispute. We hope that future investigators will update these reviews as new scholarship resolves the uncertainties of today.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it