International subarachnoid aneurysm trial – ISAT Part II: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) demonstrated improved one-year clinical outcomes for patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms treated with endovascular coiling compared to surgical clipping. Patients included in ISAT were mostly good grade subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients with small anterior circulation aneurysms. The purported superiority of coiling is commonly extrapolated to patients not studied in the original trial or to those treated using new devices not available at the time. Conversely, many patients are treated by clipping despite ISAT, because they are thought either to be better candidates for surgery, or to offer more durable protection from aneurysm recurrences. These practices have never been formally validated. Thus, for many ruptured aneurysm patients the question of which treatment modality leads to a superior clinical outcome remains unclear. METHODS/TRIAL DESIGN: ISAT II is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial comparing clinical outcomes for non-ISAT patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage allocated to coiling or clipping. Inclusion criteria are broad. The primary end-point is the incidence of poor clinical outcome (defined as mRS >2) at one year, just as in ISAT. Secondary end-points include measures of treatment safety for a number of pre-specified subgroups, with efficacy end-points including the presence of a major recurrence at one year; 1,896 patients (862 each arm plus 10% losses) are required to demonstrate a significant difference between coiling and clipping, hypothesizing 23% and 30% poor clinical outcome rates, for coiling and clipping, respectively. The trial should involve at least 50 international centers, and will take approximately 12 years to complete. Analysis will be by intention-to-treat.
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 | 0.040 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.019 |
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".