Impact of Aneurysm Projection on Intraoperative Complications During Surgical Clipping of Ruptured Posterior Communicating Artery Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical clipping of ruptured posterior communicating artery (PCoA) aneurysms is a well-established procedure to date. However, preoperative factors associated with procedure-related risk require further elucidation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the direction of aneurysm projection on the incidence of procedure-related complications during surgical clipping of ruptured PCoA aneurysms. METHODS: A total of 65 patients with ruptured PCoA aneurysms who underwent surgical clipping were retrospectively analyzed from a single-center, prospective, observational cohort database in this study. The aneurysms were categorized into lateral and posterior projection groups, depending on direction of the dome. Characteristics and operative findings of each projection group were identified. We also evaluated any correlation of aneurysm projection with the incidence of procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Patients with ruptured PCoA aneurysms with posterior projection more likely presented with good-admission-grade subarachnoid hemorrhage (P = .01, χ test) and were less to also have intracerebral hematoma (P = .01). These aneurysms were found to be associated with higher incidence of intraoperative rupture (P = .02), complex clipping with fenestrated clips (P = .02), and dense adherence to PCoA or its perforators (P = .04) by univariate analysis. Aneurysms with posterior projection were also correlated with procedure-related complications, including postoperative cerebral infarction or hematoma formation (odds ratio, 5.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-31.1; P = .04) by multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Ruptured PCoA aneurysms with posterior projection carried a higher risk of procedure-related complications of surgical clipping than those with lateral projection.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".