Impact of coil price knowledge by the operator on the cost of aneurysm coiling. A single center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment of aneurysms with coils is among the most frequent treatments in interventional neuroradiology, and represents an important expense. Each manufacturer has created several types of coils, with prices varying among brands and coil types. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of cost awareness of the exact price of each coil by the operating physician on the total cost of aneurysm coiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a comparative study conducted over 1 year in a single tertiary care center. The reference cohort and the experimental cohort consisted of all aneurysm embolization procedures performed during the first 6 months and the last 6 months, respectively. During the second period, physicians were given an information sheet with the prices of all available coils and were requested to look at the sheet during each procedure with the instruction to try to reduce the total cost of the coils used. Expenses related to the coiling procedures during each period were compared. RESULTS: 77 aneurysms (39 ruptured) in the reference cohort and 73 aneurysms (36 ruptured) in the experimental cohort were treated, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference regarding aneurysm location and mean size. The overall cost of the coiling procedures, the mean number of coils used per procedure, and the median cost of each procedure did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: Awareness of the precise price of coils by operators without any additional measure did not have a scientifically proven impact on the cost of aneurysm embolization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".