MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114873091 · doi:10.1148/radiol.10091982

Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Unruptured Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature on Safety and Efficacy

2010· review· en· W2114873091 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Notre-Dame
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyConfidence intervalDigital subtraction angiographyCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewMeta-analysisMEDLINEModified Rankin ScaleSurgeryInternal medicineAngiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report an updated, systematic review of medical literature from January 2003 to July 2008, on endovascular treatment (EVT) of intracranial unruptured aneurysms (UAs) (a) to assess the morbidity and case fatality rate of EVT of UAs, (b) to understand how bias can affect results, and (c) to estimate the efficacy of EVT by using reported digital subtraction angiographic (DSA) results and clinical follow-up events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article was prepared in accordance with the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The literature was searched by using PubMed and the EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria were (a) explicit procedural mortality and morbidity rates; (b) at least 10 patients; (c) saccular, intradural, nondissecting UAs; (d) original study published in English or French between January 2003 and July 2008; and (e) a methodological quality score higher than 6, according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria. End points included procedural mortality and morbidity, defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 3-6 at 1 month, and efficacy, estimated by using immediate and follow-up digital subtraction angiographic results, as well as delayed hemorrhagic events. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies were included. Procedural unfavorable outcome was found in 4.8% (random-effect weighted average; 189 of 5044) of patients (99% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9%, 6.0%). Immediate angiographic results showed satisfactory occlusion in 86.1% (2660 of 3089) of UAs. Recurrences were shown in 321 (24.4%) of 1316 patients followed up for 0.4-3.2 years. Retreatment was performed in 9.1% (random-effect weighted average; 166 of 1699) of patients (99% CI: 6.2%, 13.1%). The annual risk of bleeding after EVT was 0.2% (random-effect weighted average; nine of 1395) of patients (99% CI: 0.1%, 0.3%), but clinical follow-up was short, limited to the first 6 months for 76.7% (n = 1071) of reported patients. CONCLUSION: EVT of UAs can be performed with relative safety. The efficacy of treatment as compared with observation has not been rigorously documented.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it