MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

E-081 Assessment of the MAFA Ratio as a Quantitative Prognostic Marker of Aneurysm Occlusion after Flow Diverter Treatment

2016· article· en· W2569254040 on OpenAlexaff
Vítor Mendes Pereira, Olivier Brina, John Bracken, Timo Krings, Karl‐Olof Lövblad, Fred van Nijnatten, Daniël Ruijters, Thijs Grünhagen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow diverterAneurysmMedicineOcclusionReceiver operating characteristicRadiologyThrombosisNuclear medicineStentSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Flow-diverter stents (FDSs) have been used effectively to treat wide neck and complex intracranial aneurysms (IAs). However, treatment strategies vary significantly. Previously, the normalized mean aneurysm flow amplitude ratio (MAFA-R) has been described as a novel metric to quantify aneurysm flow reduction that occurs as a result of FD stenting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the MAFA-R in predicting complete occlusion for IAs treated with FDSs. Materials and methods We included patients harboring unruptured saccular IAs, which were treated with flow diverter stents. For each patient, a 3D rotational angiogram was performed prior to implantation and two high frame rate DSA sequences were acquired respectively pre- and post- FD stenting. The aneurysmal flow reduction as indicated by the MAFA-R was calculated using dedicated software (AneurysmFlow, Philips Healthcare). The MAFA-R performance for prediction of complete aneurysm occlusion was tested against the thrombosis incidence at 3, 6, and 12 months by using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis performance test. The AUC was determined, as well as the threshold maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity. The analysis was carried out on the total aneurysm cohort as well as for a subgroup of aneurysms >10 mm. Results We included 54 consecutive patients. All cases were successfully treated with a[o1] flow diverter stent. At 3 months follow-up, 11 out of 54 aneurysms were fully occluded (20%), and 43 displayed residual circulation (80%). The performance of MAFA-R test for the total cohort was: AUC = 0.60, p = 0.386 and threshold = 0.62. At 6 months 31/54 aneurysms occluded (57%), AUC = 0.657, p = 0.414, threshold = 0.93. At 12 months 39/52 aneurysms occluded (75%), AUC = 0.66, p = 0.081, threshold =0.89. For the large aneurysm subgroup, the results were: at 3 months 2/19 aneurysms occluded (11%): AUC = 0.97, p = 0.014, threshold = 0.64; at 6 months 7/19 aneurysms occluded (37%): AUC = 0.82, p < 0.0001, threshold = 0.93; and at 12 months 11/18 aneurysms occluded (61%): AUC = 0.91, p < 0.0001, threshold = 0.89. Conclusions Aneurysm occlusion after FD stenting is determined by multiple factors including aneurysm size, morphology and the hemodynamic environment. While for the total aneurysm cohort no significance was reached, the results of this study show that for large aneurysms, the MAFA-R is an independent predictor of aneurysm occlusion at 12 months follow up (MAFA-R threshold = 0.89). This real-time functional assessment may potentially help the clinician to adapt the treatment during the procedure by adding further FDS layers or intra-saccular coils. [o1]Some cases were implanted with 2 devices, BB4-4AE2-9764-89B1B81991A1$$ Disclosures V. Mendes Pereira: 1; C; Philips, Medtronic. O. Brina: None. J. Bracken: 5; C; Philips. T. Krings: None. K. Lovblad: None. F. van Nijnatten: 5; C; Philips. D. Ruijters: 5; C; Philips. T. Grünhagen: 5; C; Philips.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→