An approach to recurrent aneurysms following endovascular coiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the most appropriate management of aneurysm recurrences following coiling consists only of uncontrolled case series and the resulting expert opinions, which range from not following coiled patients at all to performing invasive angiography at regular intervals. METHODS: We discuss several current attitudes toward how to manage post-coiling recurrences and outline an approach to finding concrete, practical answers to common clinical questions. RESULTS: Although some maxims and general statements can be reluctantly offered, in the absence of evidence the best approach is to emphasize proper methods in order to one day find reliable answers. These can only come from randomized clinical trials. The multitude of research questions is an added difficulty. A program of necessary trials is proposed and centers are encouraged to work in a collaborative fashion in order to offer best possible care as well as progress. CONCLUSION: Common clinical questions, including how to follow coiled aneurysm patients, if and when to re-treat, and with which treatment modality, are best addressed with the sound scientific methodology of clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".