Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms With Radioactive Coils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms is safe and effective but is associated with angiographic recurrences. Beta radiation prevents recanalization after coil embolization in experimental models. We wanted to assess the feasibility of using radioactive coil embolization to improve long-term results of endovascular treatment. METHODS: Platinum coils were ion-implanted with 0.13 to 0.26 microCi/cm of 32P. Forty-one patients aged 34 to 84 years with 44 aneurysms with a high propensity for recurrences were included. Radioactive coils were introduced into aneurysms to reach a target volumetric activity of 0.018 microCi/mm3. Nonradioactive coils were also used to ensure the same safety and the same angiographic results as the standard procedure. Angiographic results, procedure-related complications, and neurological events during follow-up were recorded. Angiographic follow-up data are available in 36 lesions 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: Forty of 44 aneurysms (91%) could be treated with radioactive coils. Target activities could be reached in 88% of lesions that could actually be coiled (35/40). Total activities ranged from 1.72 to 80.9 microCi, for a mean of 20.13+/-20.80 microCi. Procedure-related complications occurred in 7% of patients. Initial angiographic results were satisfactory (complete occlusions or residual necks) in 75% of lesions. Angiographic recurrences occurred in 11 (31%) of patients followed, within the expected range for standard coils. There was no complication from beta radiation during a mean follow-up period of 10 months. CONCLUSIONS: Radioactive coil embolization is feasible; target volumetric activities can be reached in most aneurysms considered for endovascular treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".