Clinical and angiographic long-term follow-up of completely coiled intracranial aneurysms using endovascular technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The anatomical evolution and clinical outcome of completely coiled intracranial aneurysms after endovascular embolization have rarely been studied separately. From their prospective database, the authors reviewed follow-up angiography and clinical outcome of 87 patients whose aneurysms were designated as 100% obliterated on immediate postembolization angiography. METHODS: Ninety-one aneurysms (56 ruptured and 35 unruptured) in 87 patients were included in this study. Clinical outcome was evaluated using the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Follow-up angiographic findings were assessed and categorized as 1 of the following: no recanalization, recanalization with a neck remnant, or recanalization with a body remnant. For statistical analysis, the recanalization rate was correlated with: clinical presentation; the largest aneurysm diameter, aneurysm neck size, and dome-to-neck ratio; aneurysm location; and use of special techniques such as usage of a surface modified coil, balloon remodeling technique, or stent. RESULTS: At the latest clinical evaluation (mean 34.3 months), 81 (93.1%) of the 87 patients (91 aneurysms) had good clinical outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale Score 5). The procedure-related morbidity rate (permanent neurological deficit) was 2.3% (2 of 87), and there were no procedure-related deaths. On the latest follow-up angiography (mean 26.4 months), the recanalization rate was 26.4% (24 of 91 aneurysms): 16 (17.6%) with neck remnants and 8 (8.8%) with body remnants. The neck size of the recanalized aneurysms was statistically significantly larger than that of the nonrecanalized aneurysms (p = 0.006), and aneurysms with wide necks (> or = 4 mm) had a higher recanalization rate than those with a narrow neck (< 4 mm) (p = 0.002). There was no bleeding after endovascular treatment during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Completely coiled aneurysms after endovascular embolization demonstrated good clinical outcome, and there was no bleeding episode after endovascular treatment; however, there was a relatively high recanalization rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".