DSA-Dynavision in pretreatment planning for coil embolization of indirect carotid–cavernous fistula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Indirect carotid cavernous fistulas are treated with coil embolization when they present with orbital/visual symptoms or if there is cortical venous reflux. Most of the time, the treatment is done by non-specifically packing the whole cavernous sinus with coils. The purpose of this case series was to examine whether DSA-Dynavision before embolization would improve treatment by shortening the procedure time, requiring fewer coils, or reducing the complication rate. MATERIALS AND METHOD: 8 patients with 9 fistula sites were retrospectively identified. DSA-Dynavision and non-DSA-Dynavision patients were compared in a retrospective cohort study. RESULTS: Mean total coil length was significantly shorter for the group who had DSA-Dynavision than for those who had non-DSA-Dynavision (130.5 cm vs 190 cm, p=0.034) and mean procedural time was significantly shorter for the DSA-Dynavision group (171.1 min vs 280.3 min, p=0.025). A transient neurological complication was seen in only one patient. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DSA-Dynavision in pre-procedural planning facilitates selective coil embolization of the foot of the vein.
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) | 0.000 | 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".