Congenital Arteriovenous Malformations: A Follow-Up of Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the rarity of arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), there is a paucity of information on the outcomes of various treatments. Presently, the mainstays of treatment of an AVM are embolization, surgical excision or a combination of both. A retrospective study of 26 patients with AVMs treated at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario between 1985 and 1995 was performed. The treatment strategies and patient outcomes were compared in terms of efficacy, complications and the response of patients and their families to their overall treatment. The overall findings showed that embolization alone was effective in controlling symptoms, but may be associated with an increased AVM size. A partial excision of an AVM does not appear to exacerbate recurrence, as has been previously reported. In fact, even after what appears to be a complete excision of the AVM, recurrence may still occur. Complications from a surgical excision of the AVM are more frequent but less devastating than complications from embolization of the lesion. The overall patient or parent satisfaction with treatment was high with respect to improvement in outcome. It is expected that with an increasing understanding of vascular malformations, and the evolution of interventional radiological techniques, complications will decrease and results as a whole will improve.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".