MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399578742 · doi:10.1186/s41205-024-00222-1

Desktop 3D printed anatomic models for minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass

2024· article· en· W4399578742 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

Venue3D Printing in Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine3d printed3d printerLikert scaleCoronary anatomyThree dimensional printing3D printing3d modelSurgeryRadiologyNuclear medicineCardiologyBiomedical engineeringArtificial intelligenceCoronary angiographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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) 3D printed (3DP) anatomic models in the pre-procedural planning of MIDCAB. METHODS: Retrospective analysis included 12 patients who underwent MIDCAB using 50% scale 3D printing 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 & 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 3DP anatomic models was estimated subjectively by the cardiothoracic surgeon. 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 the OR. The measurements were significantly different between the CT and 3DP (p < 0.05) as well as CT and OR (p < 0.05) groups, but not between the 3DP and OR group. The Likert responses suggested high clinical utility of 3D printing. The mean subjectively estimated OR time saved was 40 min. 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 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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue3D Printing in MedicineSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207