The Design of the Canadian UnRuptured Endovascular versus Surgery (CURES) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Once a decision has been made to treat an intact aneurysm, the best treatment remains uncertain. Both surgical and endovascular management strategies are commonly performed for these lesions. Surgical clipping, for years the standard treatment, is gradually becoming supplanted by endovascular treatment. However, there is no randomized data available to compare the results of surgery versus endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms (UIAs). METHODS: We report the design of the Canadian UnRuptured Endovascular versus Surgery (CURES) trial to compare angiographic and clinical outcomes following treatment of UIAs. RESULTS: The Canadian pilot phase will serve two purposes: i) to determine feasibility of the pivotal international study, and ii) to determine the incidence of treatment failure, a composite primary end-point comprising the occurrence of either: failure to accomplish aneurysm obliteration with the initial treatment modality, a major saccular aneurysm remnant or recurrence, or intracranial hemorrhage following treatment at one year. The pivotal international study will address which strategy leads to the best overall clinical outcomes in terms of mortality, morbidity, and clinical efficacy. CURES is designed to be a pragmatic management trial with loose inclusion criteria. The pilot study plans to enroll 260 patients, a size sufficient (at 80% power and 0.05 significance) to detect a decrease in the incidence of treatment failure from 13% to 4%. The formulation of specific hypotheses for the pivotal phase awaits the preliminary CURES morbidity and mortality results. CONCLUSIONS: The CURES trial intends to test surgical versus endovascular management strategies for the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".