Endovascular treatment of pericallosal aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Pericallosal artery aneurysms are uncommon. Their treatment strategy, surgical or endovascular, will present specific challenges. The objective of the study was to compare risks of coil therapy and the recurrence rate of pericallosal artery aneurysms with aneurysms in other intradural locations. METHODS: The authors examined data that were stored in a prospectively collected database for pericallosal artery aneurysms in patients who underwent coil placement between 1992 and 2005. Hemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications as well as clinical and angiographic outcomes were reviewed. Angiographically documented recurrences were classified as minor or major. These lesions were compared with a historical cohort of non-pericallosal artery aneurysms in patients who underwent coil therapy between 1992 and 2002. The known risk factors for recurrence and procedure-related hemorrhagic complications were evaluated in both groups to assess baseline imbalances. RESULTS: During a 13-year period, 25 pericallosal artery aneurysms were treated with coils in 25 patients. The non-pericallosal artery lesion group included 488 aneurysms of which 344 underwent follow-up imaging. Procedure-related perforations were more frequent for pericallosal artery aneurysms than those in other intradural locations (three of 25 compared with eight of 476, respectively; risk ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-22.5, p = 0.03). Follow-up imaging studies (obtained at a mean 28 months) were available for 19 patients with pericallosal artery aneurysms. The recurrence rate was not significantly higher in these patients (22.9/100 person-years of observation) than in those with non-pericallosal artery aneurysms (17.9/100 person-years of observation) (incidence rate ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.6-2.4, p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Pericallosal artery aneurysms were associated with significantly higher periprocedural rupture than non-pericallosal artery lesions. No significant intergroup difference was found for aneurysm recurrence.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".