Intraoperative Assessment of Aneurysm Clipping Using Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Diffusion-weighted Imaging: Technical Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND IMPORTANCE: To use intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging, including magnetic resonance angiography and diffusion-weighted imaging, to monitor the surgical treatment of a patient with an intracranial aneurysm. TECHNIQUE: Intraoperative imaging was performed with a ceiling-mounted, mobile, 1.5-T magnet (developed in collaboration with Innovative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems, Inc., Winnipeg, MB, Canada) that included high-performance 20-mT/m gradients. Pre- and postclipping, intraoperative, T1-weighted, angiographic and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images were obtained from a patient with an incidental, 8-mm, anterior communicating artery aneurysm. RESULTS: T1-weighted images demonstrated brain anatomic features, with visible shifts induced by surgery. Magnetic resonance angiography demonstrated the aneurysm and indicated that, after clipping, the A1 and A2 anterior cerebral artery branches were patent. Diffusion-weighted studies demonstrated no evidence of brain ischemia. CONCLUSION: For the first time, intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging has been used to monitor the surgical treatment of a patient with an intracranial aneurysm.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".