Cryopreservation of Rat Aortic Valves Results in Increased Structural Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background —The cause of valve allograft failure is most likely multifactorial and may include mechanical, immunological, and other factors. Cryopreservation of these valves is often used to extend storage times. However, there has been considerable confusion as to the effects of cryopreservation on valve durability. Our objective was to determine the effects of cryopreservation on histopathological changes in rat aortic valve grafts. Methods and Results —Syngeneic rat aortic valve grafts (Lewis to Lewis; n=24) and allogeneic rat aortic valve grafts (Brown Norway to Lewis; n=24) were implanted infrarenally, either fresh or after cryopreservation. At 7, 14, and 28 days, the valves were explanted, and histological and immunohistochemical examinations were performed in a blinded fashion. Fresh syngeneic graft leaflets retained their normal structure for the 28-day period of observation. Cryopreserved syngeneic grafts showed retrovalvar thrombus formation, with leaflet destruction at 7, 14, and 28 days. Fresh allogeneic graft leaflets showed significant leaflet thickening and progressive destruction at 14 and 28 days. Cryopreserved allogeneic grafts had evidence of retrovalvar thrombus formation with leaflet destruction at 7, 14, and 28 days. Cryopreserved syngeneic grafts resulted in significant infiltration of mononuclear (ED1 + ) cells not seen with fresh syngeneic grafts but similar to fresh allogeneic grafts. All allogeneic grafts resulted in significant infiltration of T-lymphocytes (CD3 + , CD8 + , CD43 + ). Conclusions —Cryopreservation appears to predispose syngeneic and allogeneic rat aortic valve leaflets to accelerated injury and destruction. This mode of failure resembles that of fresh allogeneic valve grafts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".