Comparison of 3 Different Types of Spinal Arteriovenous Shunts below the Conus in Clinical Presentation, Radiologic Findings, and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:</h3> Spinal arteriovenous shunts below the conus constitute 3 types of lesions, which have previously been mainly described in case reports, given their rarity, and are sometimes misdiagnosed. The purpose of this study was to describe the features of each type and compare these types as to epidemiologic features, clinical and radiologic presentations, treatment, and outcomes in a consecutive series of 48 cases. <h3>MATERIALS AND METHODS:</h3> The prospectively collected data bases of 2 referral centers for spinal vascular lesions were retrospectively reviewed. Spinal arteriovenous shunts below the conus were defined as all dural and intradural shunts below the conus medullaris. Clinical features, radiologic findings, treatment results, and clinical outcomes were assessed. <h3>RESULTS:</h3> There were filum terminale arteriovenous fistulas in 11 patients (22.9%), radicular arteriovenous shunts in 7 patients (14.6%), and spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas in 30 patients (62.5%). Radicular arteriovenous shunts presented at a younger age (<i>P</i> = .017) and with a higher incidence of back pain symptoms (<i>P</i> = .037). A tethered spinal cord was found in 54.5% of patients with filum terminale arteriovenous fistulas and 23.3% of patients with spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas. After treatment, the angiographic complete obliteration rate was 89.4% and spinal function was improved significantly (<i>P</i> < .001). <h3>CONCLUSIONS:</h3> Three groups of spinal arteriovenous shunts below the conus can be differentiated according to clinical and radiologic features. Filum terminale arteriovenous fistulas are frequently associated with dysraphic malformations, which may suggest a particular embryologic origin.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".