MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280885176 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.115.012162

Patient- and Aneurysm-Specific Risk Factors for Intracranial Aneurysm Growth

2016· review· en· W2280885176 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAneurysmConfidence intervalRelative riskOdds ratioPoisson regressionStroke (engine)Cohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryRadiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Follow-up imaging is often performed in intracranial aneurysms that are not treated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on patient- and aneurysm-specific risk factors for aneurysm growth. METHODS: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE for cohort studies describing risk factors for aneurysm growth. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and rated quality with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. With univariable Poisson regression analysis, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of risk factors for aneurysm growth. Heterogeneity was assessed with I(2). RESULTS: Eighteen studies on 15 patient-populations described 3990 patients with 4972 unruptured aneurysms. A total of 437 aneurysms (9%) enlarged during 13 987 aneurysm-years of follow-up. Compared with aneurysms ≤4 mm, RRs were 2.56 (95% CI, 1.93-3.39; I(2)=98%) for ≥5 mm, 2.80 (95% CI, 2.01-3.90; I(2)=96%) for ≥7 mm, and 5.38 (95% CI, 3.76-7.70; I(2)=97%) for ≥10 mm. Compared with aneurysms on the middle cerebral artery, the RR for basilar artery was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.32-2.83; I(2)=57%). RRs were 2.03 (95% CI, 1.52-2.71; I(2)=59%) for smoking at baseline, 2.04 (95% CI, 1.56-2.66; I(2)=90%) for multiple unruptured aneurysms, 1.26 (95% CI, 0.97-1.62; I(2)=59%) for women, 1.24 (95% CI, 0.98-1.58; I(2)=40%) for hypertension, and 2.32 (95% CI, 1.46-3.68; I(2)=91%) for irregular aneurysm shape. Compared with other regions, RR was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.96) for Japan and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.45-0.90) for Finland. CONCLUSIONS: Most risk factors for aneurysm growth are consistent with risk factors for rupture. In contrast with rupture, the risk of growth was smaller in Japanese and Finnish cohorts compared with other regions. Pooling of individual patient data from low- and high-risk geographical regions is needed to assess independent predictors of aneurysm growth.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.255 · 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