MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020003737 · doi:10.1097/rct.0b013e3181d27393

Comparison of Computed Tomography Angiography With Digital Subtraction Angiography in the Assessment of Clipped Intracranial Aneurysms

2010· article· en· W2020003737 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDigital subtraction angiographyRadiologyAneurysmAngiographySubtractionComputed tomography angiographyOcclusionNuclear medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine whether computed tomography angiography (CTA) is comparable to digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in assessing clipped intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective collection of clipped aneurysms that had both CTA and DSA within 2 months of one another. Computed tomography angiograms were independently reviewed by 2 blinded neuroradiologists; rereviewed by one at least 4 months later. Each was classified as complete obliteration, neck remnant, or residual aneurysm. Parent vessel was classified as patent or occluded. Digital subtraction angiograms were reviewed in a similar manner by a third blinded neuroradiologist. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients with 53 clipped aneurysms were collected. On DSA, 35 were completely obliterated, 10 neck remnants, and 8 residual aneurysms. The ability of CTA to detect residual aneurysms versus complete obliterations or neck remnants was excellent (mean sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 100%; positive predictive value [PPV], 100%; negative predictive value [NPV], 98%). The ability of CTA to detect neck remnants versus complete obliterations was poor (mean sensitivity, 20%; specificity, 99%; PPV, 83%; NPV, 81%). The CTAs were good at detecting parent vessel occlusion (mean sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 97%; PPV, 75%; NPV, 99%). Interrater and intrarater agreement was good to excellent for aneurysm and parent vessel assessment, with kappa values ranging from 0.6 to 1.0. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography angiography has high sensitivity and specificity for residual aneurysm detection and parent vessel occlusion. It is not accurate in neck remnant detection, although these were small and of uncertain clinical significance. This suggests that CTA is useful for follow-up of clipped aneurysms. However, given the potential to miss neck remnants or small residual aneurysms, it is recommended to perform initial DSA and CTA to select cases in which CTA follow-up is appropriate.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it