Partial “targeted” embolisation of brain arteriovenous malformations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of pial arteriovenous brain malformations is controversial. Little is yet known about their natural history, their pathomechanisms and the efficacy and risks of respective proposed treatments. It is known that only complete occlusion of the AVM can exclude future risk of haemorrhage and that the rates of curative embolisation of AVMs with an acceptable periprocedural risk are around 20 to 50%. As outlined in the present article, however, partial, targeted embolisation also plays a role. In acutely ruptured AVMs where the source of bleeding can be identified, targeted embolisation of this compartment may be able to secure the AVM prior to definitive treatment. In unruptured symptomatic AVMs targeted treatment may be employed if a defined pathomechanism can be identified that is related to the clinical symptoms and that can be cured with an acceptable risk via an endovascular approach depending on the individual AVM angioarchitecture. This review article gives examples of pathomechanisms and angioarchitectures that are amenable to this kind of treatment strategy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it