MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328053841 · doi:10.1016/j.jacasi.2022.11.016

Can Most Calcified Coronary Stenosis Be Optimized With Coronary Intravascular Lithotripsy?

2023· review· en· W4328053841 on OpenAlexaff
Rohit Mody, Debabrata Dash, Bhavya Mody, Anand Reddy Maligireddy, Ankit Agrawal, Lakshay Rastogi, Inderjeet Singh Monga

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Asia · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOptical coherence tomographyLithotripsyPerforationRadiologyAtherectomyIntravascular ultrasoundStentRestenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intravascular lithotripsy can be used as an effective therapy for lesion preparation in severely calcified lesions. The mechanism, as shown by optical coherence tomography, is calcium fractures. The aforementioned modification is performed with minimal risk of perforation, no-reflow and a low incidence of flow-limiting dissection and myocardial infarctions. Other techniques, such as cutting or scoring balloons and rotational atherectomy have also been shown to increase luminal diameter, but other complications, such as distal embolization, induced by these treatment modalities, are a source of concern. This review describes a single-center study of all-comer patients, including those with complex characteristics. This therapy is very effective, with a very low risk of complications. In this article, we characterize the mechanism of action of the intravascular lithotripsy catheter, its optical coherence tomography validation, clinical applications, and comparison with other calcium-modifying technologies, as well as future directions, which can be used to improve the technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC AsiaSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207