Modeling and Prediction of a Guidewire's Reachable Workspace and Deliverable Forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Goal:</i> In this study, we investigated the feasibility of predicting the performance of a specific guidewire in terms of its ability to cover a lesion cap surface and apply force to the lesion for a given patient's vessel anatomy. The aim of this research was to provide information that could be used to plan occlusion crossings and peripheral revascularization procedures preoperatively in a way that reduces the risk of potential intraoperative complications and increases the likelihood of success. <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Methods:</i> We used finite element (FE) analysis to simulate the interaction between the guidewire and a model of a tortuous vessel, and we used this simulation to predict the reachable workspace and deliverable forces of the device for various entry positions and angles. We then validated these predictions through experiments in which we advanced a guidewire through an identical vessel phantom using a robotic manipulator. <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusions:</i> Our findings suggest that it may be possible to predict the performance of a guidewire and forecast the likelihood of success or failure for a given vessel anatomy and lesion morphology, which could enable improved planning and device selection.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".