Balloon Remodeling May Improve Angiographic Results of Stent-Assisted Coiling of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment of wide-necked and complex aneurysms may require stent-assisted coiling, either as primary stenting or combined with the balloon remodeling technique (BRT). OBJECTIVE: To compare the angiographic results and clinical outcomes of both strategies in the Safety and Efficacy of Neuroform for Treatment of intracranial Aneurysms (SENAT) registry. METHODS: SENAT was a prospective, multicenter registry that allowed BRT in conjunction with stenting and coiling with bare platinum coils. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of 97 patients with unruptured aneurysms treated with stenting, 51 after BRT (BRT+) and 46 without balloon assistance (BRT-), were retrieved from the SENAT database. Technical, clinical, and angiographic outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Periprocedural morbimortality and midterm clinical outcomes were not different between groups. Residual aneurysms were observed in 7.8% of BRT+ and in 21.7% of BRT- (P = .08) at the end of the stenting procedure. Four retreatments were performed during the follow-up period (2 BRT+, 2 BRT-). Twelve- to 18-month anatomic results showed a significant difference between groups, with a residual aneurysm being observed in 6.1% of BRT+ as compared to 22.7% of BRT- patients (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Primary BRT followed by stent-assisted coiling may be associated with fewer residual aneurysms at 12 to 18 months as compared to stent-assisted coiling alone.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".