Immediate Clinical Outcome of Patients Harboring Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Treated by Endovascular Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms remains controversial and the results of endovascular treatment are not precisely known because no prospective data exist. The first prospective multicenter study (ATENA) was conducted in Canada and France to determine clinical outcome and risks of this treatment. METHODS: Six hundred forty-nine patients harboring a total of 1100 aneurysms from 27 Canadian and French neurointerventional centers were prospectively and consecutively treated by endovascular coil embolization. Of these, 739 unruptured intracranial aneurysms were treated during 700 procedures. Aneurysms were selectively treated in the great majority of cases (98.4%) with coils alone (54.5%), the balloon remodeling technique (37.3%), or stenting (7.8%). RESULTS: Endovascular treatment failed in 32 aneurysms (4.3%). Technical adverse events with or without clinical modification were encountered in 15.4% of patients and included thromboembolic complications (7.1% per procedure), intraoperative rupture (2.6% per procedure), and device-related problems (2.9% per procedure). Adverse events associated with transient or permanent neurological deficit or death were encountered in 5.4% of cases. The 1-month morbidity and mortality rates were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms is feasible in a high percentage of cases with low morbidity and mortality rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".