Surgical clipping or endovascular coiling for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a pragmatic randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) are increasingly diagnosed and are commonly treated using endovascular treatment or microsurgical clipping. The safety and efficacy of treatments have not been compared in a randomised trial. How to treat patients with UIAs suitable for both options remains unknown. METHODS: We randomly allocated clipping or coiling to patients with one or more 3-25 mm UIAs judged treatable both ways. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as: initial failure of aneurysm treatment, intracranial haemorrhage or residual aneurysm on 1-year imaging. Secondary outcomes included neurological deficits following treatment, hospitalisation >5 days, overall morbidity and mortality and angiographic results at 1 year. RESULTS: The trial was designed to include 260 patients. An analysis was performed for slow accrual: 136 patients were enrolled from 2010 through 2016 and 134 patients were treated. The 1-year primary outcome, available for 104 patients, was reached in 5/48 (10.4% (4.5%-22.2%)) patients allocated surgical clipping, and 10/56 (17.9% (10.0%-29.8%)) patients allocated endovascular coiling (OR: 0.54 (0.13-1.90), p=0.40). Morbidity and mortality (modified Rankin Scale>2) at 1 year occurred in 2/48 (4.2% (1.2%-14.0%)) and 2/56 (3.6% (1.0%-12.1%)) patients allocated clipping and coiling, respectively. New neurological deficits (15/65 vs 6/69; OR: 3.12 (1.05-10.57), p=0.031), and hospitalisations beyond 5 days (30/65 vs 6/69; OR: 8.85 (3.22-28.59), p=0.0001) were more frequent after clipping. CONCLUSION: Surgical clipping or endovascular coiling of UIAs did not show differences in morbidity at 1 year. Trial continuation and additional randomised evidence will be necessary to establish the supposed superior efficacy of clipping.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".