MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159664048 · doi:10.3171/jns.2006.104.2.226

Complications of embolization of arteriovenous malformations of the brain

2006· article· en· W2159664048 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles S. Haw, Karel G. terBrugge, Robert A. Willinsky, George Tomlinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalToronto General HospitalToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmbolizationArteriovenous malformationMortality rateSurgeryArteriovenous fistulaIntracranial Arteriovenous MalformationsCerebral angiographyAngiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: The goal of this study was to determine the rates of mortality and morbidity associated with the embolization of arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) of the brain and to analyze the factors related to embolization-related complications. METHODS: The University of Toronto Brain Vascular Malformation Study Group database was reviewed. Three hundred six patients underwent 513 embolization sessions between November 1984 and September 2002. The combined rate of death and any permanent disabling neurological deficit was 3.9% per patient. Location of the AVM in an eloquent part of the brain, presence of a fistula, and a venous deposition of glue were related to complications. A clinically important reduction in the rate of death and disabling morbidity occurred in the second half of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Embolization of AVMs in the brain is associated with low overall rates of mortality and disabling morbidity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations164
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207