MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411011775 · doi:10.1115/dmd2025-1095

Bench-to-bedside: Use of particle image velocimetry to assess iterative development of cerebral bifurcation flow diverter and its proof of principle

2025· article· en· W4411011775 on OpenAlexaff
Sina G. Yazdi, D. Mercier, Kai Kallenberg, Michael Chow, Jeremy Rempel, Donald R. Ricci

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle image velocimetryBifurcationProof of conceptFlow (mathematics)Development (topology)Computer scienceMechanicsPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Brain aneurysms are at risk of rupture causing death or disability. Many treatments exist for wide neck bifurcation aneurysms, the most common type of aneurysm, but none have become definitive standard of care because a variety of deficiencies exist for each. Flow diversion (FD) with tubular FDs has emerged as definitive treatment for sidewall aneurysms, causing sufficient reduction in aneurysm flow velocity that blood stasis and thrombosis occurs, leading to complete occlusion of the aneurysm. Tubular FD at bifurcations, however, are inadequate, leading to incomplete neck coverage and obstruction of blood flow to side branches. This paper describes the use of particle imaging velocimetry to evaluate iterative design changes to achieve a true bifurcation FD, capable of sufficiently reducing aneurysm flow velocity to produce prolonged stasis and ultimately leading to complete aneurysm occlusion without the use of adjuvant intrasaccular contents such as coils.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207