Endovascular treatment of aneurysms and platinum coil caliber: Study protocol of a randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular coil embolization of cerebral aneurysms is an effective treatment for the prevention of aneurysm rebleeding after subarachnoid hemorrhage. It is also often used in unruptured aneurysms, but it is associated with aneurysm remnants and recurrences in up to 20%-33% of patients. We hypothesized that better aneurysm occlusion rates can be achieved with coils of larger caliber. METHODS: The Does Embolization with Larger coils lead to better Treatment of Aneurysms (DELTA) trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. To test the hypothesis that 15-caliber coiling systems are superior to 10-caliber coils, 564 patients with aneurysms measuring 4-12 mm will be randomized 1:1 to embolization with either 10-caliber coils exclusively (control group) or the highest safely achievable proportion of 15-caliber coils (intervention group). The primary efficacy endpoint of the trial is the occurrence of a major recurrence or a residual aneurysm at one year. A pilot phase of 165 patients will be conducted to verify feasibility of the coiling strategy, compliance to treatment allocation, safety of a 15-caliber platinum coil embolization strategy, recruitment rates, and the capacity to improve packing density. DISCUSSION: The DELTA trial will test the hypothesis that the use of coils of larger caliber can improve angiographic results of endovascular coiling.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".