Endovascular Treatment of a “Blister-like” Aneurysm of the Internal Carotid Artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: "Blister-like" aneurysms of the supraclinoid internal carotid artery have recently been recognized as having unique pathological and clinical features. Little is known regarding their optimal treatment modality. METHODS: We report a case of a "blister-like" aneurysm of the internal carotid artery treated with Guglielmi detachable coil (GDC) embolization. CASE REPORT: A 55-year-old man presented with a Hunt & Hess grade II subarachnoid hemorrhage. Computed tomography revealed diffuse subarachnoid blood. Cerebral angiography demonstrated a broad-based bulge on the medial wall of the right distal internal carotid artery. The patient was taken to the operating room and underwent a right pterional craniotomy and wrapping of this unclippable aneurysm. On postoperative day 11, he developed signs of vasospasm, and repeat angiography showed remarkable growth of the aneurysm. The aneurysm was believed to be amenable to endovascular therapy and was treated by GDC embolization. The patient recovered well and remained neurologically intact on follow-up examinations. Repeat cerebral angiography was performed three and nine months following his initial presentation and revealed a significant aneurysm neck remnant. This neck remnant was treated by repeat GDC embolization 13 months following his subarachnoid hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: "Blister-like" aneurysms of the internal carotid artery are important to recognize and are difficult to manage using traditional surgical approaches. Early repeated cerebral angiography is indicated and, where appropriate, endovascular therapy should be considered in the management of these patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".