Unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the Familial Intracranial Aneurysm and International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms cohorts: differences in multiplicity and location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Familial predisposition is a recognized nonmodifiable risk factor for the formation and rupture of intracranial aneurysms (IAs). However, data regarding the characteristics of familial IAs are limited. The authors sought to describe familial IAs more fully, and to compare their characteristics with a large cohort of nonfamilial IAs. METHODS: The Familial Intracranial Aneurysm (FIA) study is a multicenter international study with the goal of identifying genetic and other risk factors for formation and rupture of IAs in a highly enriched population. The authors compared the FIA study cohort with the International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms (ISUIA) cohort with regard to patient demographic data, IA location, and IA multiplicity. To improve comparability, all patients in the ISUIA who had a family history of IAs or subarachnoid hemorrhage were excluded, as well as all patients in both cohorts who had a ruptured IA prior to study entry. RESULTS: Of 983 patients enrolled in the FIA study with definite or probable IAs, 511 met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Of the 4059 patients in the ISUIA study, 983 had a previous IA rupture and 657 of the remainder had a positive family history, leaving 2419 individuals in the analysis. Multiplicity was more common in the FIA patients (35.6% vs 27.9%, p<0.001). The FIA patients had a higher proportion of IAs located in the middle cerebral artery (28.6% vs 24.9%), whereas ISUIA patients had a higher proportion of posterior communicating artery IAs (13.7% vs 8.2%, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Heritable structural vulnerability may account for differences in IA multiplicity and location. Important investigations into the underlying genetic mechanisms of IA formation are ongoing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".