Cerecyte Coil Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We report the primary outcome of the Cerecyte Coil Trial, a randomized trial to determine whether polymer-loaded Cerecyte coils compared with Micrus bare platinum coils improved the proportion of patients with angiographic occlusion of the aneurysm at 6 months when assessed by a core laboratory. The secondary objectives were to compare the clinical outcomes and retreatment rates in the 2 groups. METHODS: Five hundred patients between 18 and 70 years of age with a ruptured or unruptured target aneurysm were randomized to be treated with either Cerecyte or bare platinum coils in 23 centers worldwide. Two hundred forty-nine patients were assigned to Cerecyte coils and 251 to bare platinum coils. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-four patients were eligible for analysis. Four hundred eighty-one patients underwent coil treatment of their aneurysm, 227 patients with recently ruptured aneurysms and 254 with unruptured aneurysms. Four hundred thirty-three follow-up angiograms were assessed by the core laboratory; 127 of 215 (59%) and 118 of 218 (54%) in the Cerecyte and bare platinum groups, respectively, fulfilled the trial prespecified definition of success, namely that the treated aneurysm showed complete angiographic occlusion, had stable neck remnant, or improved in angiographic appearance compared with the end-of-treatment angiogram (P=0.17). Late retreatment was performed in 25 of 452 (5.5%) patients, 17 (7.7%) Cerecyte versus 8 (3.5%) bare platinum (P=0.064; range, 4-34 months). The clinical outcomes did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference at 6 months in the angiographic outcomes between Cerecyte coils and bare platinum coils when assessed by the core laboratory. Clinical Trial Registration Information- URL: www.controlled-trials.com. Unique Identifier: ISRCTN82461286.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".