Prospective Study of Early MRI Appearances following Flow-Diverting Stent Placement for Intracranial Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging findings of aneurysm enlargement, aneurysm wall enhancement, perianeurysmal edema, and embolic phenomena following deployment of flow-diverting stents may be relevant to those patients who subsequently experience procedure-related intracranial hemorrhage. We sought to document the routine early postoperative MR imaging findings following flow-diverting stent insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients requiring flow-diverting stent placement for treatment or retreatment of cerebral aneurysms were prospectively included in the study during a 26-month period. Early postprocedural MR imaging studies were obtained and compared with preoperative imaging. Patient clinical outcome data were also collected. RESULTS: There were 34 stent-placement procedures during the study period. Aneurysm mural enhancement and mild new perianeurysmal edema were present in 50% and 14%, respectively. Any DWI lesion was present in 57% of cases. New or possibly new foci of susceptibility effect were found ipsilateral to the stent and not associated with diffusion restriction in 66% of cases. There were 2 cases (6%) of parenchymal hemorrhage and 2 major clinical complications (6%) causing permanent morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic aneurysm mural enhancement is frequently seen following flow-diverting stent placement and should not necessarily be interpreted as a sign of impending aneurysm rupture. This finding often persists despite complete aneurysm occlusion. New small brain parenchymal susceptibility foci following stent placement have not previously been reported, to our knowledge, but were common in our series.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".