Practical analysis of type 1 aortic arch anatomy – Towards a standardized arch endograft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies currently requires custom‐made endografts to reflect an individual's anatomy, causing a treatment delay. This study's purpose is to identify common patterns in the anatomy of the type 1 aortic arch and its branches to aid in the development of an off‐the‐shelf endograft. TeraRecon 3D imaging software was used for morphological assessment of CT scans from 45 patients (26 M, 19 F; mean age 68). A total of 13 measurements were made including diameter, distance and orientation of vessels. Statistical analysis indicated various trends. The diameter of the aorta was larger more proximally (closer to the coronary arteries), the distance between the inominate artery (IA) and the left common carotid artery (LCC) was approximately half the distance measured between the LCC and the left subclavian artery (LSC). Branch ostia diameters consistently ranked in the following order IA>LSC>LCC. Lastly, the LCC orientation, with respect to the other two vessels, was within a 50° range. This study provides useful information for the production of an arch endograph prototype reflecting the anatomy of the majority of patients. Prospective validation of this design is required. Grant Funding Source : Departmental
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".