Analysis of Cost Related to Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of Aneurysm Patients Enrolled in the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial in a North American Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare, in a North American setting, the cost-effectiveness of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. A secondary goal was to assess the clinical outcomes of patients enrolled into the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) from the largest contributing North American center. METHODS: Of 230 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, 62 were randomized into ISAT at our institution. Of these, 30 were randomized to endovascular coiling and 32 to neurosurgical clipping. For these, we evaluated the costs of treatment related to all aspects of the inpatient stay, the clinical outcomes at 2 months and at 1 year using the modified Rankin Scale, and the radiological outcomes at 6 months after Guglielmi detachable coiling. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the total cost of treatment between the endovascular group and the neurosurgical clipping group. The benefits of apparent decrease in length of stay in the endovascular group were offset by higher procedure costs. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes at 2 months and at 1 year. At 6 months after coiling, 15 (50%) of 30 aneurysms were completely obliterated, and 19 (63%) of 30 were angiographically stable. CONCLUSION: The high procedure costs of endovascular coiling tended to offset apparent reductions in length of stay. Long-term follow-up is indicated both for costs incurred after initial treatment and for clinical outcome in patients with incompletely obliterated aneurysms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".