Is there an inherited anatomical conformation favoring aneurysmal formation of the anterior communicating artery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the formation of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) remain only partially elucidated. However, current evidence suggests a genetic component. The purpose of this study was to investigate the specific anatomical variations in the arterial complex that are associated with the presence of anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysms in the familial forms of IAs. METHODS This multicenter study investigated bifurcation IAs in patients who had a sporadic ACoA IA without a family history of IA (SACAA group), in patients who had an ACoA IA with a family history of IA (FACAA group), and in their healthy first-degree relatives (HFDRs). Through the use of MR angiography (MRA) reconstructions, the symmetry of the A 1 segments and the angle between the A 1 and A 2 segments were analyzed on 3D models for each group. These measurements were then compared among the 3 groups. RESULTS Twenty-four patients with SACAA, 24 patients with FACAA, and 20 HFDRs were included in the study. Asymmetrical configuration of the A 1 segments was more frequent in the FACAA group than in the HFDR group (p = 0.002). The aneurysm-side A 1 –A 2 angle was lower in the FACAA group (p = 0.003) and SACAA group (p = 0.007) than in the HFDR group. On the contralateral side, there was no difference in A 1 –A 2 angles between groups. CONCLUSIONS The anatomical shape of the ACoA complex seems to be similarly associated with the presence of ACoA IAs in both the FACAA and SACAA groups. This highlights the role played by hemodynamic constraints in aneurysm formation and questions the hypothesis of the hereditary character of these anatomical shapes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".