MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384922435 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000001073

Evaluation and management of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis

2023· review· en· W4384922435 on OpenAlexaff
Shane Parfrey, Vincent Siu, John Graham, Ram Vijayaraghavan, Christopher Li, Jeffrey Pang, Sanjog Kalra, Vladimír Džavík, Harindra C. Wijeysundera, Akshay Bagai

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRestenosisBalloonStentAngioplastyDrug-eluting stentRadiologyIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the most common cause of stent failure. Although the rate of ISR is significantly lower with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES), it remains a challenging clinical entity to treat. RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we focus on a practical approach to management of DES ISR with intravascular imaging at its core, as supported by several recently published articles. This facilitates assessment of the underlying mechanism(s) essential to the successful treatment of ISR allowing for a tailored selection of treatment modalities. SUMMARY: The successful treatment of DES ISR requires identification of the causative mechanism(s). Individualized treatment may include high-pressure balloon angioplasty alone, cutting or scoring balloons, intravascular lithotripsy, atheroablative therapies and a selection of either repeat DES implantation or drug-coated balloon treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.276
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207