P-027 The Role of Interventional Therapy in Head and Neck Arteriovenous Malformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Head and neck arteriovenous malformations (H&N AVM) are challenging to treat, and impart clinical and psychosocial morbidity. We evaluated the role of endovascular therapy and its success with varying presentations and characteristics. Methods Our retrospective period spanned 1984 to 2013, and included any patients who received neurointerventional treatment. Candidate AVMs involved the scalp, orbit, maxillofacial, and upper neck. All available clinical, surgical, interventional and imaging records were reviewed. Results 89 patients with H&N AVMs received endovascular therapy, including 48 small and 41 large lesions. The goals of treatment were identified as curative (n = 30), palliative (n = 34), or presurgical (n = 25). The average number of treatment sessions per patient was 1.5. The goal of treatment was met in 92.1% of cases, and cure was achieved in 42 patients accounting for 58.4% of the total patients for all categories. 28 patients were cured by embolization alone (31.4%) of which 18 were single-hole AVFs. 24 received presurgical embolization (27%) and were cured by subsequent excision. 30 patients reported adequate palliation of their complaints (33.7%). 7 patients suffered transient and 2 permanent endovascular treatment complications. Conclusion Interventional treatment can be curative, particularly in small AVMs, with surgical excision as an important option. However, the role of endovascular therapy should not be underestimated in terms of palliation of large lesions, including complex incurable lesions. Disclosures A. Dmytriw: None. K. terBrugge: None. T. Krings: None. R. Agid: None.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".