MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcome in small aneurysms (<4 mm) treated by endovascular coiling

2011· article· en· W2120463431 on OpenAlexaff
Cheemun Lum, Surendra Narayanam, Leonardo Silva, Jai Shankar, Miguel Bussière, Marlise P. dos Santos, Howard Lesiuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAneurysmEndovascular coilingRadiologyPerforationSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyTortuosityCohortEndovascular treatmentInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Coiling of small aneurysms can be technically challenging. These aspects of coiling tend to be less problematic in medium to large aneurysms as they are more accommodating of microcatheters and coils. When physicians are asked their opinion regarding aneurysm coilability in small aneurysms, the decision often lies in the operator's feeling that they could reasonably exclude the aneurysm with a complication rate similar to larger aneurysms. The purpose of our study was to investigate the feasibility, intraprocedural rupture rates and long term durability of endovascular coiling for small (≤4 mm) aneurysms compared with non-small (>4 mm) aneurysms. To control for factors such as vessel tortuosity and aneurysm location, a control group was chosen matched to the study group both in age and aneurysm location. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 360 intracranial aneurysms coiled at our institution between 2003 and 2008 was performed. For the control group, intracranial aneurysms coiled in the same period matched to location and age were chosen. RESULTS: The frequency of intraprocedural perforations was 4/34 (0.12) and 3/68 (0.04) for the small and non-small cohort, respectively (p=0.22). All patients who had a perforation in the small aneurysm groups had a good clinical outcome compared with 1/3 in the non-small group (two mortalities). The frequency of recanalization for the small and non-small groups was 3/34 (0.09) and 23/68 (0.33), respectively (p=0.006). There was no retreatments in the small aneurysm group and five (0.07) in the non-small group (p=0.116). CONCLUSION: Coiling of small (≤4 mm) aneurysms is feasible with a reasonable complication rate. There is a non-significant increase in frequency of intraprocedural rupture with coiling of small aneurysms compared with controls matched to aneurysm location and age but this is not associated with increased morbidity. Coiling of small aneurysms leads to durable results at long term follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroInterventional SurgerySame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207