Surgical Treatment vs Nonsurgical Treatment for Brain Arteriovenous Malformations in Patients with Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia: A Retrospective Multicenter Consortium Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are common in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). However, due to the rarity of HHT and little published evidence of outcomes from management of brain AVMs in this disease, current international HHT guidelines recommend an individualized approach. Specifically, the outcomes for surgical vs nonsurgical management of these lesions have not been reported to date. OBJECTIVE: To report long-term outcomes of surgical resection of brain AVMs in HHT patients compared to outcomes in nonsurgically treated patients. METHODS: From the database of the Brain Vascular Malformation Consortium HHT project, 19 patients with 20 resected AVMs (group 1) and 22 patients with 33 AVMs who received nonsurgical treatment (group 2) were studied. The groups were retrospectively reviewed for changes in functional status (modified Rankin Scale score) during the follow-up period. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 9% of patients in group 1 suffered from worsening of functional status, whereas this figure was 16% for group 2 (P > .05). Functional outcomes were not statistically different between the 2 groups at the latest follow-up (P > .05). CONCLUSION: HHT patients treated surgically for brain AVMs appear to have long-term functional outcomes comparable to nonsurgical (including observational) therapy with fewer unfavorable outcomes. It is therefore reasonable to consider surgical resection as a management option in the multidisciplinary team's individualized treatment strategy for HHT patients with brain AVMs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".