MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389573674 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3717297/v1

Desktop 3D Printed Anatomic Models for Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass

2023· preprint· en· W4389573674 on OpenAlexaff
Prashanth Ravi, Michael B. Burch, Andreas A. Giannopoulos, Isabella Liu, Shayne Kondor, Leonid Chepelev, Tommaso Hinna Danesi, Frank J. Rybicki, Antonio Panza

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
Keywords3d printerMedicine3d printedLikert scaleThree dimensional printing3d model3D printingCoronary anatomyMammary arteryObservational studyArterySurgeryRadiologyNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceStatisticsCoronary angiographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> Background: Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has impacted many clinical applications across medicine. However, 3D printing for Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass (MIDCAB) has not yet been reported in the peer-reviewed literature. The current observational cohort study aimed to evaluate the impact of half scaled (50% scale) 3DP anatomic models in the pre-procedural planning of MIDCAB. Methods: Retrospective analysis included 12 patients who underwent MIDCAB using 50% scale 3DP between March and July 2020 (10 males, 2 females). Distances measured from CT scans and 3DP anatomic models were correlated with Operating Room (OR) measurements. The measurements were compared statistically using Tukey’s test. The correspondence between the predicted (3DP &amp; CT) and observed best InterCostal Space (ICS) in the OR was recorded. Likert surveys from the 3D printing registry were provided to the surgeon to assess the utility of the model. The OR time saved by planning the procedure using 3D printed anatomic models was estimated. Results: All 12 patients were successfully grafted. The 3DP model predicted the optimal ICS in all cases (100%). The distances measured on the 3DP model corresponded well to the distances measured in OR. The measurements were significantly different between the CT and 3DP (p &lt; 0.05) as well as CT and OR (p &lt; 0.05) groups, but not the 3DP and OR group. The Likert responses suggested high clinical utility of 3D printing. The mean estimated OR time saved was 40 minutes. Conclusion: The 50% scaled 3DP anatomic models demonstrated high utility for MIDCAB and saved OR time while being resource efficient. The subjective benefits over routine care that used 3D visualization for surgical planning warrants further investigation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207