Differences in the Angiographic Evaluation of Coiled Cerebral Aneurysms between a Core Laboratory Reader and Operators: Results of the Cerecyte Coil Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Independent evaluation of angiographic images is becoming widely applied in the assessment of treatment outcomes of cerebral aneurysms. In the current study, we assessed the agreement between an independent core laboratory and the operators regarding angiographic appearance in a recent randomized, controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were derived from the Cerecyte Coil Trial. Angiographic images of each coiled aneurysm, taken immediately after embolization and at 5- to 7-month follow-up, were evaluated by the operator at the treating center and by an independent neuroradiologist at the core laboratory. For the purpose of this study, images were interpreted on a 3-point scale to provide uniformity for analysis; grade 1: complete occlusion, grade 2: neck remnant; and grade 3: sac filling. "Unfavorable angiographic appearance" was defined as grade 3 at follow-up or interval worsening of grade between the 2 time points. RESULTS: The study included 434 aneurysms. Immediately after embolization, grade 3 was reported by operators in 39 (9%) compared with 52 (12%) by the core laboratory (P = .159). On follow-up, grade 3 was reported by operators in 44 (10%) compared with 81 (19%) by the core laboratory (P < .0001). Overall, operators noted unfavorable angiographic appearance in 78 (18%) compared with 134 (31%) by the core laboratory (P < .0001). At every time point, agreement between the core laboratory and the operators was slight. CONCLUSIONS: Unfavorable angiographic appearance was noted almost twice as frequently by an independent core laboratory as compared with the operators. Planning of trials and interpretation of published studies should be done with careful attention to the mode of angiographic appearance interpretation.
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 | 0.031 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".