Canadian Experience with the Pipeline Embolization Device for Repair of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow-diverting stents, such as the PED, have emerged as a novel means of treating complex intracranial aneurysms. This retrospective analysis of the initial Canadian experience provides insight into technical challenges, clinical and radiographic outcomes, and complication rates after the use of flow-diverting stents for unruptured aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cases were compiled from 7 Canadian centers between July 2008 and December 2010. Each center prospectively tracked their initial experience; these data were retrospectively updated and pooled for analysis. RESULTS: During the defined study period, 97 cases of unruptured aneurysm were treated with the PED, with successful stent deployment in 94 cases. The overall complete or near-complete occlusion rate was 83%, with a median follow-up at 1.25 years (range 0.25-2.5 years). Progressive occlusion was witnessed over time, with complete or near-complete occlusion in 65% of aneurysms followed through 6 months, and 90% of aneurysms followed through 1 year. Multivariate analysis found previous aneurysm treatment and female sex predictive of persistent aneurysm filling. Most patients were stable or improved (88%), with the most favorable outcomes observed in patients with cavernous carotid aneurysms. The overall mortality rate was 6%. Postprocedural aneurysm hemorrhage occurred in 3 patients (3%), while ipsilateral distal territory hemorrhage was observed in 4 patients (3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Flow-diverting stents represent an important tool in the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms. The relative efficacy and morbidity of this treatment must be considered in the context of available alternate interventions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".