The Endovascular Management of Superior Cerebellar Artery Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Superior cerebellar artery aneurysms are rare. We present a clinical series of twelve of these aneurysms that were treated exclusively with endovascular coils. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of cerebral aneurysms treated with coil embolization was performed. Clinical notes and radiological images were reviewed. RESULTS: Twelve superior cerebellar artery aneurysms were treated in eleven patients between 1992 and 2001. Seven patients presented with subarachnoid hemorrhage, two with neurologic deficit, and two had asymptomatic aneurysms. Coiling resulted in complete aneurysm obliteration in six patients and incomplete obliteration in the other six. No subsequent hemorrhage occurred with follow-up between 6 and 119 months (mean follow-up 50 months). Procedural morbidity was one superior cerebellar artery infarct with good recovery. Management morbidity was one middle cerebral artery embolus during a follow-up angiogram that required thrombolysis with a good clinical result. Nine out of 11 patients on follow-up were performing at Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) 5. One patient with GOS 3 presented with a poor grade subarachnoid hemorrhage and the other patient with GOS 4 presented with a parenchymal hemorrhage due to an arteriovenous malformation. CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of superior cerebellar artery aneurysms is an effective treatment strategy with low morbidity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".