Clinical presentation and management of giant anterior communicating artery region aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The authors reviewed their 20-year experience with giant anterior communicating artery aneurysms to correlate aneurysm size with clinical presentation and to analyze treatment methods. METHODS: In 18 patients, visual and cognitive impairment were quantitated and clinical outcome was categorized according to the Rankin scale. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. CONCLUSIONS: At least 3.5 cm of aneurysm mass effect was required to produce dementia in the patient (p = 0.0004). Dementia was usually caused by direct brain compression by the aneurysm rather than by hydrocephalus. Optic apparatus compression occurred with smaller aneurysms (2.7-3.2 cm) when they pointed inferiorly. Aneurysm neck clipping was possible in half of the cases. Special techniques, including temporary clipping, evacuation of intraluminal thrombus, tandem and/or fenestrated clipping, and clip reconstruction were often required. Occlusion of or injury to the anterior cerebral artery (ACA) was the main cause of poor outcome or death. Proximal ACA occlusion, even of dominant A1 segments with small or no contralateral A1 artery, was an effective treatment alternative and was well tolerated as a result of excellent leptomeningeal collateral circulation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".