Multiplicity of dural arteriovenous fistulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Dural arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are a well-known pathoanatomical and clinical entity. Excluding bilateral involvement of the cavernous sinus, multiple dural AVFs are rare, with isolated reports in the literature. The additional risk associated with multiplicity is unknown, although it has been claimed that there is a greater risk of hemorrhage at presentation. In a group of 284 patients with dural AVFs consecutively treated at a single center, the occurrence of multiplicity is investigated and its risk factors for hemorrhage are identified. METHODS: Among the 284 patients with both cranial and spinal dural AVFs, 20 patients with multiple fistulas were found. Nineteen (8.1%) of 235 patients with cranial AVFs had multiple cranial fistulas, and one (2%) of 49 patients with spinal AVFs harbored two spinal fistulas. Twelve patients were found to have a lesion at two separate sites, seven patients had them at three locations, and one patient had four fistulas, each at a different site. In the subgroup with multiple AVFs the percentage of hemorrhage at presentation was three times higher than in the entire group (p = 0.01). Cortical venous drainage in cranial fistulas was present in 84% of patients with multiple lesions compared with 46% of patients with solitary lesions (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple dural AVFs are not rare. In this group of 284 patients it was found in 8.1% of all patients with cranial dural AVFs. Multiplicity was associated with a higher percentage of cortical venous drainage, a pattern of drainage reportedly yielding a higher risk for hemorrhage.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".