Risk of Rupture of Small Anterior Communicating Artery Aneurysms Is Similar to Posterior Circulation Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: According to the International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms (ISUIA), anterior circulation (AC) aneurysms of <7 mm in diameter have a minimal risk of rupture. It is general experience, however, that anterior communicating artery (AcoA) aneurysms are frequent and mostly rupture at <7 mm. The aim of the study was to assess whether AcoA aneurysms behave differently from other AC aneurysms. METHODS: Information about 932 patients newly diagnosed with intracranial aneurysms between November 1, 2006, and March 31, 2012, including aneurysm status at diagnosis, its location, size, and risk factors, was collected during the multicenter @neurIST project. For each location or location and size subgroup, the odds ratio (OR) of aneurysms being ruptured at diagnosis was calculated. RESULTS: The OR for aneurysms to be discovered ruptured was significantly higher for AcoA (OR, 3.5 [95% confidence interval, 2.6-4.5]) and posterior circulation (OR, 2.6 [95% confidence interval, 2.1-3.3]) than for AC excluding AcoA (OR, 0.5 [95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.6]). Although a threshold of 7 mm has been suggested by ISUIA as a threshold for aggressive treatment, AcoA aneurysms <7 mm were more frequently found ruptured (OR, 2.0 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.0]) than AC aneurysms of 7 to 12 mm diameter as defined in ISUIA. CONCLUSIONS: We found that AC aneurysms are not a homogenous group. Aneurysms between 4 and 7 mm located in AcoA or distal anterior cerebral artery present similar rupture odds to posterior circulation aneurysms. Intervention should be recommended for this high-risk lesion group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".