Preclinical evaluation of a thin-strut bioresorbable scaffold (ArterioSorb): acute-phase invasive imaging assessment and hemodynamic implication.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the acute performance of the 95 µm ArterioSorb oriented poly L-lactic acid (PLLA) scaffold in comparison with the XIENCE metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) in porcine coronary arteries. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 15 non-atherosclerotic Yucatan mini pigs, the ArterioSorb (3.0/14 mm) and XIENCE (3.0/15 mm) were implanted in 25 and 15 vessels, respectively. Acute performance was evaluated by using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Following three-dimensional reconstruction of the coronary arteries, endothelial shear stress (ESS) was quantified using non-Newtonian steady-flow simulation. Acute recoil measured by QCA was comparable in the two arms. Post-procedural flow and scaffold/stent area by OCT did not differ between the two devices. ESS post procedure was comparable between ArterioSorb and XIENCE (2.21±1.97 vs 2.25±1.71 Pa, p=0.314). CONCLUSIONS: Acute recoil, luminal dimensions and ESS in the ArterioSorb oriented PLLA scaffold with thin struts of 95 µm were comparable to those in the XIENCE metallic DES.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".