Angiographic and clinical outcomes of balloon remodeling versus unassisted coil embolization in the ruptured aneurysm cohort of the GEL THE NEC study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose GEL THE NEC (GTN) was a multicenter prospective registry developed to assess the safety and efficacy of HydroSoft coils in treating intracranial aneurysms. We compared the angiographic and clinical outcomes of aneurysms treated with balloon assisted coil embolization (BACE) versus unassisted coil embolization (CE) in the ruptured aneurysm cohort. Materials and methods GTN was performed at 27 centers in five countries. Patients aged 21–90 years with a ruptured aneurysm 3–15 mm in size were eligible for enrollment. We analyzed demographics/comorbidities, aneurysm location, and geometry, including maximum diameter, neck size, and dome to neck ratio, immediate and long term angiographic outcomes (graded by an independent core laboratory using the modified Raymond Scale), and procedure related adverse events. Angiographic and clinical outcomes were studied using χ2and t tests. Results Of the 599 patients in the GTN, 194 met the inclusion criteria. 84 were treated with BACE and 110 with CE. There were more prior smokers in the BACE group (p=0.01). The BACE group also had more vertebrobasilar aneurysms (p=0.006) and a larger mean neck size (p=0.02). More aneurysms were immediately completely occluded in the BACE group (p=0.02) Procedure- related major morbidity and mortality were no different between the techniques (p=0.4 and p=1, respectively). Conclusions In this prospective ruptured aneurysm cohort from the GTN, BACE resulted in greater occlusion rates compared with unassisted CE with similar morbi-mortality.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".