MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1905902273 · doi:10.3171/2009.4.jns081291

Balloon-assisted extrasaccular coil embolization technique for the treatment of very small cerebral aneurysms

2009· article· en· W1905902273 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alberto Forteza Gil, Pedro Vega, Eduardo Murías, Hugo Cuellar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsMedicineEndovascular treatmentBalloonRadiologyEmbolizationAneurysmSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of very small ruptured cerebral aneurysms (< 2 mm) continues to present a challenge. These lesions are difficult to treat both with neurosurgical and endovascular techniques. A neurosurgical approach is still the treatment of choice for these lesions at many centers because of high rupture rates related to endovascular treatment; however, there are clinical circumstances in which the neurosurgical option cannot be offered. In their review of the literature, the authors did not find any series reporting endovascular treatment of these very small aneurysms. In the present study, the authors report their experience with the endovascular treatment of a series of 4 ruptured aneurysms smaller than 2 mm from neck to dome. They describe their technique of using a remodelling balloon to stabilize the tip of the microcatheter in the neck of the aneurysm without entering it at any time, and of inserting the coil from outside the sac to minimize the risk of intraoperative rupture, which is very high when conventional endovascular embolization is performed.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.276
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 designCase report
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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207