Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of endovascular therapy for acute large vessel occlusion has revolutionized stroke treatment. Timely access to endovascular therapy, and the ability to restore intracranial flow in a safe, efficient, and efficacious manner has been critical to the success of the thrombectomy procedure. The stentriever has been a mainstay of endovascular stroke therapy, and current guidelines recommend the usage of stentrievers in the treatment of large vessel occlusion stroke. Despite the success of existing stentrievers, there continues to be significant development in the field, with newer stentrievers attempting to improve on each of the three key aspects of the thrombectomy procedure. Here, we elucidate the technical requirements that a stentriever must fulfill. We then review the basic variables of stent design, including the raw material and its form, fabrication method, geometric configuration, and further additions. Lastly, a selection of stentrievers from successive generations are reviewed using these engineering parameters, and clinical data is presented. Further avenues of stentriever development and testing are also presented.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it