Unilateral Transverse Sinus Stenting of Patients with Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The pathophysiology of IIH remains unknown. TS stenoses have been observed in a high proportion of these patients. Stent placement to remove this potential obstruction to venous outflow has been proposed as a treatment option for patients with IIH refractory to medical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical presentation, treatment, and outcome of patients with refractory IIH evaluated for venous sinus stent placement at a tertiary care center was retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Thirteen female patients with IIH were evaluated for sinovenous stent placement. Moderate sinus stenoses with normal intrasinus pressures were found in 3 patients and therefore stent placement was not performed. Ten patients had elevated intrasinus pressures (pressure gradient across stenosis, 11-50 mm Hg), which decreased following unilateral TS stent placement. Headaches improved or resolved in all stented patients. Papilledema resolved completely or almost completely in 8 patients and significantly improved in 2 patients. One patient developed optic atrophy. There were no major periprocedural complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this small case series, restoring the patency of stenotic venous sinuses with a stent in patients with refractory IIH resulted in symptomatic improvement in all treated patients. The safety and efficacy of this procedure should be evaluated in a randomized controlled study to determine its role within the armamentarium of therapeutic options for patients with IIH.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".