MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Study of the TAI QING<sup>TM</sup> Single-Hub Patent Foramen Ovale Occluder.

2025· article· en· W4416815639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kun Wang, Xi Chen, Jiyan Chen, Xiaofei Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatent foramen ovaleAnimal modelForamen secundumClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: single-hub occluder for patent foramen ovale (PFO) in preclinical animal experiments. Methods: single-hub occluder was implanted in the animals with PFO. Three animals were sacrificed at 1, 3, 9 and 12 months post-implantation, respectively, to evaluate the macroscopic anatomical structure and pathological conditions. Results: single-hub occluder was successfully implanted in all 12 Labrador retrievers (100%). No implant-related complications were detected during the operation and follow-up. The occluder remained stable in its implant location. At 1 month post-implantation, the surfaces of both discs was covered with a translucent layer. Over time, the surface of the occluder became covered with an opalescent membrane, and the tissue surrounding the occluder gradually thickened. Histological and electronic microscopy analysis revealed the presence of endothelial cells and collagen fiber deposition in the tissue with increasing implantation time. Furthermore, at 12 months post-implantation, successful re-puncture was performed. Conclusions: single-hub occluder was safe and effective in the animal model. The results support further investigations in large animal models and human clinical trials.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207