Combination of Alcohol and EVOH as a New Embolic Agent: Midterm Tissue and Inflammatory Effects in a Swine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the vascular occlusion and midterm tissue toxicity properties of a combination of ethylene-vinyl alcohol (EVOH) (Squid 18®) (75%) and alcohol (25%)—Alco-Squid 18—in a swine model. Materials and Methods. Alco-Squid 18 (75% Squid 18® mixed with 25% alcohol) (AS18) was compared to embolization with 96% alcohol alone and to embolization with Squid 18® (S18®) alone. An arteriovenous malformation (AVM) model was created in group 1 (n = 2). Each AVM model was then embolized with AS18 or S18® alone with evaluation of a ratio between the volume of embolic agent divided by the volume of the AVM (evaluated by CT). For group 2 (n = 5), each agent was tested on three different kidneys (upper pole kidney artery). Pre- and postinterventional CTs, angiographies, blood alcohol content dosages, and histological studies (3 months postintervention) were performed. Results. AS18 has better distal distribution than S18® alone, both in the kidneys (mean capsule-S18® distance: 3.9 mm (±0.23) and mean capsule-AS18 distance: 2.3 mm (±0.11) ( p = 0.029 ) and in the AVM model. Histological exploration found a higher rate of tubular necrosis with AS18 compared with S18® alone and alcohol alone (3.78 ± 0.44 compared to 2.33 ± 1.22 p = 0 . 012 and 1.22 ± 0.67 p < 0 . 0001 ). The blood alcohol content was negligible in all cases. Conclusion. AS18 can suggest a better distal sclerotic and embolic character as compared with S18® alone without systemic toxicity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".