MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036713751 · doi:10.1080/17434440.2020.1784004

Recent advances in devices for mechanical thrombectomy

2020· review· en· W3036713751 on OpenAlexaff
Raphaël Blanc, Simon Escalard, Humain Baharvadhat, Jean‐Philippe Désilles, William Boisseau, Robert Fahed, Hocine Redjem, Gabriele Cicciò, Stanislas Smajda, Benjamin Maïer, François Delvoye, Solène Hébert, Mikaël Mazighi, Michel Piotin

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Medical Devices · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) secondary to the occlusion of a large intracranial vessel (LVO) is a recognized public health problem. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has gained full acceptance: Class A, Level 1 in 2015 after the publication of numerous trials. Further meta-analyses have scrutinized extensively those results and international recommendations and guidelines have been given. Nevertheless, multiple-specific points remain to be clarified and are or will be under investigations. AREAS COVERED: This review of the most recent literature (mostly publications after 2015) will cover the actual common practice for MT, especially focusing on the devices available (and their validation), how they are commonly used, relate the most relevant results, and detail some emerging technologies. EXPERT OPINION: The authors will express their own view on the current practice and emphasize on the areas where questions remain and hypothesize what specific improvements are necessary and prone to occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Medical DevicesSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207