O-018 Long-term anatomical results after endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms with GDC and Matrix coils: analysis of the CLARITY series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose CLARITY is a prospective, multicenter, consecutive series including patients treated with GDC or Matrix coils for ruptured aneurysms. Long-term anatomical results are presented. Materials and Methods Postoperative and long-term anatomical results were evaluated anonymously and independently by two experienced neuroradiologists using the 3-point Modified Montreal scale. Results Post-operative and long-term anatomical results were evaluated in 517/649 patients (79.7%). In the long-term follow-up, complete occlusion was reported in 95/276 aneurysms (34.4%) in the GDC group and 80/241 aneurysms (33.2%) in the Matrix group, neck remnant in 127/276 aneurysms (46.0%) in the GDC group and 118/241 aneurysms (49.0%) in the Matrix group, and aneurysm remnant in 54/276 aneurysms (19.6%) in the GDC group and 43/241 aneurysms (17.8%) in the Matrix group (p=0.780). Direct comparison of long-term vs immediate post-operative aneurysm occlusion showed improvement in 35/272 aneurysms (12.9%) in the GDC group and 27/239 aneurysms (11.3%) in the Matrix group, stable situation in 98/272 aneurysms (36.0%) in the GDC group and 97/239 aneurysms (40.6%) in the Matrix group, and worsening in 139/272 aneurysms (51.1%) in the GDC group and 115/239 aneurysms (48.1%) in the Matrix group (p=0.555). During the follow-up period, a total of 32/517 patients were retreated: 9/276 (3.3%) in the GDC group and 23/241 (9.5%) in the Matrix group (p=0.003). Conclusions 1-year anatomical results are not different in patients with ruptured aneurysms treated with GDC or Matrix coils. Similarly, the evolution of aneurysm occlusion is not different in patients treated with GDC or Matrix coils.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".