A Randomized Trial on the Safety and Efficacy of Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms is Feasible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: The safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms remain undetermined. A randomized trial may be the best way to demonstrate the potential benefits of endovascular management. We propose a randomized, prospective, controlled trial comparing the incidence of subarachnoid haemorrage of patients treated by endovascular coiling as compared to conservative management. We would also study a composite outcome combining SAH and the morbidity of treatment. All patients with one or more unruptured aneurysm >> 3 mm eligible for endovascular treatment would be proposed to participate. The study would be conducted in 40-50 centres. The entire study would enrol 1800 patients, recruited over three years and followed for five years, but would be preceded by a feasibility study on 200 patients. A randomized trial comparing endovascular and conservative treatment could have an important impact on the clinical management of intracranial aneurysms.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".