A Randomized Trial on the Safety and Efficacy of Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms is Feasible
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it