Aneurysm Study of Pipeline in an Observational Registry (ASPIRe)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Few prospective studies exist evaluating the safety and efficacy of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. The Aneurysm Study of Pipeline In an observational Registry (ASPIRe) study prospectively analyzed rates of complete aneurysm occlusion and neurologic adverse events following PED treatment of intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter study prospectively evaluating patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated with PED. Primary outcomes included (1) spontaneous rupture of the Pipeline-treated aneurysm; (2) spontaneous nonaneurysmal intracranial hemorrhage (ICH); (3) acute ischemic stroke; (4) parent artery stenosis, and (5) permanent cranial neuropathy. Secondary endpoints were (1) treatment success and (2) morbidity and mortality at the 6-month follow-up. Vascular imaging was evaluated at an independent core laboratory. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-one patients with 207 treated aneurysms were included in this registry. The mean aneurysm size was 14.5 ± 6.9 mm, and the median imaging follow-up was 7.8 months. Twenty-four aneurysms (11.6%) were small, 162 (78.3%) were large and 21 (10.1%) were giant. The median clinical follow-up time was 6.2 months. The neurological morbidity rate was 6.8% (13/191), and the neurological mortality rate was 1.6% (3/191). The combined neurological morbidity/mortality rate was 6.8% (13/191). The most common adverse events were ischemic stroke (4.7%, 9/191) and spontaneous ICH (3.7%, 7/191). The complete occlusion rate at the last follow-up was 74.8% (77/103). CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective postmarket study confirms that PED treatment of aneurysms in a heterogeneous patient population is safe with low rates of neurological morbidity and mortality. Patients with angiographic follow-up had complete occlusion rates of 75% at 8 months.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".