Endovascular treatment of experimental wide neck aneurysms: comparison of results using coils or cyanoacrylate with the assistance of an aneurysm neck bridge device.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular treatment of wide neck aneurysms often results in incomplete occlusion or aneurysm recurrence. The two goals of the present study were to compare results of coil embolization with or without the assistance of an aneurysm neck bridge device (ANBD) and to explore the use of this instrument to control cyanoacrylate embolization. METHODS: Wide necked bifurcation aneurysms were constructed in 28 dogs. Coil embolization of the aneurysms was performed 2 to 4 weeks later, with (n = 11) or without (n = 10) ANBD assistance. In seven other animals, embolization was performed with cyanoacrylate, injected under the protection of ANBDs. Angiographic results were compared immediately after and at 3 and 12 weeks. Neointima formation at the neck was also compared between groups at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Initial angiographic results and recurrences at 12 weeks were not significantly different in aneurysms coiled with or without ANBDs. Neointimal scores were also similar. The use of one ANBD at the neck was not sufficient to safely deliver cyanoacrylate into aneurysms. Cyanoacrylate embolization led to improved angiographic results (P =.05) and to better neointimal sealing of the neck of the aneurysms at 12 weeks (P =.004). CONCLUSION: ANBDs did not prevent recanalization and recurrences after coil embolization of wide neck aneurysms in this animal study. ANBD-assisted cyanoacrylate embolization was unsafe but could decrease recurrences at 12 weeks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".