MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391983822 · doi:10.1136/jnis-2023-021177

First-in-human experience of sirolimus coated balloon for symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis

2024· article· en· W4391983822 on OpenAlexaff
Jichang Luo, Renjie Yang, Tao Wang, Jian Chen, Xia Lu, Bin Yang, Peng Gao, Yabing Wang, Yanfei Chen, Adam A. Dmytriw, Jiamin Zheng, Robert W. Regenhardt, Zheng Li, Xu Han, Yan Ma, Jonathon Zhao, Liqun Jiao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRestenosisAngioplastyStroke (engine)BalloonStenosisSirolimusSurgeryPaclitaxelStentInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The drug coated balloon is a promising endovascular therapy for intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS), potentially combining the advantages of primary angioplasty and antiproliferative drugs. Previous studies have focused on the paclitaxel coated balloon, revealing promising outcomes in the treatment of ICAS, while concerns about the neurotoxicity of paclitaxel were reported. Sirolimus was shown to have less neurotoxicity in the canine cerebral vasculature. The feasibility and safety of a sirolimus coated balloon (SCB) for ICAS have never been evaluated in humans. We assessed the first-in-human feasibility and safety of SCBs for treating symptomatic patients with severe ICAS. METHODS: This prospective, open label, single arm cohort study was designed to enroll patients with transient ischemic attacks or non-disabling, non-perforator territory ischemic stroke caused by severe ICAS (70-99%) and following at least 3 weeks after the onset of ischemic symptoms. The primary outcome was stroke or death within 30 days. All patients were followed up to detect restenosis at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 60 eligible patients were enrolled with an average age of 59.4±10.8 years. The technical success rate of SCBs for ICAS was 100%. Seven patients (11.7%) required stenting because of flow limited dissections or elastic retraction. Three patients (5.0%) had 30 day strokes, including two ischemic strokes and one hemorrhagic stroke. An additional three patients had recurrent stroke or death during follow-up. Ten patients had restenosis but only two had symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: SCBs may be feasible and safe in selected patients with symptomatic ICAS, with high grade stenosis (70-99%). Further studies are warranted.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroInterventional SurgerySame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207