Surgical anatomy of the cerebral arteries in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: comparison of computerized tomography angiography and digital subtraction angiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to compare computerized tomography (CT) angiography and digital subtraction (DS) angiography studies in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) to assess their vascular anatomy relevant to cerebral aneurysm surgery. METHODS: From a prospective series of 100 patients with SAH, the authors selected 73 patients whose CT angiography studies were of adequate quality and in whom DS angiography of both carotid arteries had been performed. Eleven patients with no DS angiographic studies of the vertebrobasilar artery were only evaluated for the anterior half of the circle of Willis. Anterior communicating arteries (ACoAs), both precommunicating anterior cerebral arteries (A1 segments), both posterior communicating arteries (PCoAs), and both precommunicating posterior cerebral arteries (P1 segments) were assessed on CT angiography and DS angiography by two independent observers. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomography angiography compares well with DS angiography for visualizing normal-sized arteries, and is superior for visualizing ACoAs and hypoplastic A1 and P, segments. Important preoperative aspects such as dominant A1 segments and PCoAs are equally well seen using either modality. Neither method enabled the authors to visualize more than 50% of PCoAs. Use of CT angiography can provide the required preoperative anatomical information for aneurysm surgery in most patients with SAH.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".