Flow Diversion in Aneurysms Trial: The Design of the FIAT Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracranial aneurysms, particularly large and giant, fusiform or recurrent aneurysms are increasingly treated with flow diverters (FDs), a recently introduced and approved neurovascular device. While some rare cases may not be treated any other way, in most patients a more conventional, conservative, or validated approach such as coiling, parent vessel occlusion, or surgical clipping exists. Only a randomized clinical trial can answer the question of which treatment option leads to better patient outcomes.We report the design of the FIAT study, a clinical care trial aiming to compare angiographic and clinical outcomes following treatment with a Flow-Diverter or with the best conventional treatment option. The FIAT study will include both a randomized and a registry portion. Patients will be proposed randomization to either FD stenting or best conventional treatment option (observation, coiling, stenting, or clipping) as determined by the treating physician. FIAT will recruit a total of 338 patients, to show that i) FD stenting can be performed with an 'acceptable' immediate complication rate of less than 15% morbidity and mortality (defined as mRS > 2); ii) FD stenting can increase from 75 to 90% the proportion of patients with a "good outcome", defined as complete or near-complete occlusion of the aneurysm AND a good clinical outcome (mRS ≥ 2) at one year, as compared to the best conventional option. The FIAT study provides a scientific and ethical context to care for patients eligible for flow-diversion therapy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it