European Bifurcation Club white paper on stenting techniques for patients with bifurcated coronary artery lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Defining the optimal conduction of percutaneous-coronary-intervention (PCI) to treat bifurcation lesions has been the subject of many clinical studies showing that the applied stenting technique may influence clinical outcome. Accordingly, bifurcation stenting classifications and technical sequences should be standardized to allow proper reporting and comparison. METHODS: The European Bifurcation Club (EBC) is a multidisciplinary group dedicated to optimize the treatment of bifurcations and previously created a classification of bifurcation stenting techniques that is based on the first stent implantation site. Since some techniques have been abandoned, others have been refined and dedicated devices became available, EBC promoted an international task force aimed at updating the classification of bifurcation stenting techniques as well as at highlighting the best practices for most popular techniques. Original descriptive images obtained by drawings, bench tests and micro-computed-tomographic reconstructions have been created in order to serve as tutorials in both procedure reporting and clinical practice. RESULTS: An updated Main-Across-Distal-Side (MADS)-2, classification of bifurcation stenting techniques has been realized and is reported in the present article allowing standardized procedure reporting in both clinical practice and scientific studies. The EBC-promoted task force deeply discussed, agreed on and described (using original drawings and bench tests) the optimal steps for the following major bifurcation stenting techniques: (a) 1-stent techniques ("provisional" and "inverted provisional") and (b) 2-stent techniques ("T/TAP," "culotte," and "DK-crush"). CONCLUSIONS: The present EBC-promoted paper is intended to facilitate technique selection, reporting and performance for PCI on bifurcated lesions during daily clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".