Neuropsychological Sequelae of Patients Treated with Microsurgical Clipping or Endovascular Embolization for Anterior Communicating Artery Aneurysm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While microsurgical clipping has been the choice of treatment for anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysm, endovascular embolization is increasingly popular for treating intracranial aneurysms. Previous studies showed that in terms of mortality (i.e., death) and morbidity (i.e., functional outcome, independent living, rebleeding) rates, the clinical outcomes of coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms are as good as or even better than those of surgical clipping. However, little is known about the impact of these treatments on the cognitive functions of those survived after the treatment. Thus, the present study is designed to examine the cognitive deficits of patients treated with either surgical clipping or coil embolization. METHOD: Eighteen patients with a ruptured ACoA aneurysm were recruited. Half of them had undergone surgical clipping and the other half had endovascular embolization. Standardized neuropsychological tests were employed to assess their memory, executive function, motor ability, language and visual perceptual abilities. RESULTS: The performance of the patients was in general poorer than that of the normal control subjects on tests of verbal memory, flexible thinking, ability to resist interference and motor control. However, in terms of severity, the patients who received surgical clipping demonstrated more severe impairment than those had endovascular embolization on these cognitive domains. In addition, while 33% of patients in the clipping group showed impairments on memory and executive function, no patient in the embolization group demonstrated these impairments. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ACoA aneurysm demonstrated impaired verbal memory, executive function and motor abilities while their language and visual perception abilities remained relatively intact. However, when comparing the effect of treatment choice on the cognitive functions of these patients, the present results favored the coil embolization as the patients treated with coil embolization demonstrated significantly fewer severe cognitive deficits than patients who had undergone surgical clipping.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".