P-021 A randomized trial comparing platinum and hydrogel-coated coils in patients prone to recurrence after endovascular treatment—the PRET trial: Abstract P-021 Figure 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The PRET trial aims compares hydrocoils to bare platinum coils in patients with aneurysms prone to recurrence, that is, in patients with large aneurysms (≥10 mm; PRET-1 patients) or in patients with a major recurrence after previous coiling (PRET-2 patients). We aim at reporting an update of the randomization rate and results of the interim analysis from the DMSC. Materials and Methods PRET is a RCT with single-blind allocation. 500 subjects are followed for 18 months. PRET-1 (250) and PRET-2 (250) cases are randomized separately. Interventions are : a/bare coil embolization, or b/hydrocoil embolization. Primary endpoint is recurrence rate. Secondary endpoints include procedural complications, clinical outcome, safety of hydrogel coiling and overall M&M. Results 344 PRET subjects were randomized by 33 sites in Canada, US, France, UK, Japan and Chile. Baseline characteristics of the first 264 PRET subjects were (mean (SD)): Age = 59 (11) years; 73% had only one aneurysm; 16% presented with acute rupture of the aneurysm; Aneurysm parameters for PRET1 subjects (53%) were: size = 14 (5) mm and in 57% of cases located in the anterior circulation. Aneurysm parameters for PRET2 subjects (47%) were: size = 13 (11) mm and in 57% of cases located in the anterior circulation. An interim safety analyses carried out on 234 subjects did not reveal any significant difference in SAEs or clinical outcome (mRS>2 at discharge and 1-month follow-up) between treatment arms. Conclusion We hope that PRET will show that for the treatment of aneurysms prone to recurrence, Hydrocoils provide an equal or higher efficacy than bare platinum coils with no difference in safety profile. Competing interests J Raymond: Microvention Inc. (investigator-led clinical trial funding for PRET). D Roy: None. A Weill: None. Abstract P-021 Figure 1
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".