Effects of Circle of Willis Anatomic Variations on Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Coiled Anterior Communicating Artery Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Anterior communicating artery aneurysms account for one-fourth of all intracranial aneurysms and frequently occur in the context of A1 vessel asymmetry. The purpose of this study was to correlate circle of Willis anatomic variation association to angiographic and clinical outcomes of anterior communicating aneurysm coiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Cerecyte Coil Trial provides a subgroup of 124 cases with anterior communicating artery aneurysms after endovascular coiling. One hundred seventeen of 124 anterior communicating artery aneurysms had complete imaging and follow-up for clinical outcome analysis, stability of aneurysm coil packing, and follow-up imaging between 5 and 7 months after treatment. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the mRS at 6 months. RESULTS: Anterior cerebral artery trunk-dominance was seen in 91 of 124 (73%) anterior communicating artery aneurysms and codominance in 33 of 124 (27%) anterior communicating artery aneurysms. There was no significant difference (P > .5) in treatment success at 5-7 months for anterior communicating artery aneurysms between the anterior cerebral artery trunk-dominant (49 of 86, 57%) and anterior cerebral artery trunk-codominant (19 of 31) groups. Angiographic follow-up demonstrates a statistically significant increase in neck remnants and progressive aneurysm sac filling with the A1 dominant configuration (n = 21, 24% at follow-up versus n = 11, 12% at immediate posttreatment, P = .035). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between types of anterior cerebral artery trunk configuration (P > .5). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior communicating artery aneurysms with anterior cerebral artery trunk-dominant circle of Willis configurations show less angiographic stability at follow-up than those with anterior cerebral artery trunk-codominance similar to other "termination" type aneurysms. This supports the hypothesis that anterior cerebral artery trunk-dominant flow contributes to aneurysm formation, growth, and instability after coiling treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".