MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2578497787 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a5101

Hydrogel versus Bare Platinum Coils in Patients with Large or Recurrent Aneurysms Prone to Recurrence after Endovascular Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2017· article· en· W2578497787 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Raymond, Ruby Klink, Miguel Chagnon, Stanley L. Barnwell, Avery J. Evans, J Mocco, Brian L. Hoh, Aquilla S Turk, Raymond D Turner, Hubert Desal, David Fiorella, Serge Bracard, Alain Weill, F Guilbert, Sylvain Lanthier, Allan J. Fox, Tim E. Darsaut, Phil White, Daniel Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialAneurysmSurgeryEndovascular treatmentIntention-to-treat analysisAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Some patients are at high risk of aneurysm recurrence after endovascular treatment: patients with large aneurysms (Patients Prone to Recurrence After Endovascular Treatment PRET-1) or with aneurysms that have previously recurred after coiling (PRET-2). We aimed to establish whether the use of hydrogel coils improved efficacy outcomes compared with bare platinum coils. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PRET was an investigator-led, pragmatic, multicenter, parallel, randomized (1:1) trial. Randomized allocation was performed separately for patients in PRET-1 and PRET-2, by using a Web-based platform ensuring concealed allocation. The primary outcome was a composite of a residual/recurrent aneurysm, adjudicated by a blinded core laboratory, or retreatment, intracranial bleeding, or mass effect during the 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, mortality, and morbidity (mRS > 2). The hypothesis was that hydrogel would decrease the primary outcome from 50% to 30% at 18 months, necessitating 125 patients per group (500 for PRET-1 and PRET-2). RESULTS: The trial was stopped once 250 patients in PRET-1 and 197 in PRET-2 had been recruited because of slow accrual. A poor primary outcome occurred in 44.4% (95% CI, 35.5%–53.2%) of those in PRET-1 allocated to platinum compared with 52.5% (95% CI, 43.4%–61.6%) of patients allocated to hydrogel (OR, 1.387; 95% CI, 0.838–2.295; P = .20) and in 49.0% (95% CI, 38.8%–59.1%) in PRET-2 allocated to platinum compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 32.0%–52.2%) allocated to hydrogel (OR, 0.959; 95% CI, 0.428–1.342; P = .34). Adverse events and morbidity were similar. There were 3.6% deaths (1.4% platinum, 5.9% hydrogel; P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Coiling of large and recurrent aneurysms is safe but often poorly effective according to angiographic results. Hydrogel coiling was not shown to be better than platinum.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207