Rupture of aneurysms in the immediate post-coiling period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We present a series of cases featuring re-rupture of posterior communicating artery aneurysms in the immediate post-coiling period, where clots obscured the neck of the aneurysm during the procedure. We report on the incidence of re-rupture and discuss possible mechanisms behind this phenomenon. METHODS: This study included 462 aneurysms over a 10-year period which were treated with endovascular coiling. 137 of these were ruptured aneurysms. Radiographic and clinical information pertaining to the patients was collected. The immediate post-coiling period was defined as ≤3 days following the procedure. RESULTS: The incidence of re-rupture in the immediate post-coiling period was 1.4% (2/137). Of these two, one received recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and both received acetylsalicylic acid. One patient presented with adjacent hematoma on re-rupture. In both cases, clot obscured the aneurysm neck during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Re-rupture of intracranial aneurysms in the immediate post-coiling period is an exceedingly rare complication, and the events leading to it have not been discussed at length. Repeat treatment, follow-up imaging and close observation are merited in the setting of re-rupture of a posterior communicating artery aneurysm.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".