Changing Paradigms in the Endovascular Management of Ruptured Anterior Communicating Artery Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 17% of ruptured anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysms were deemed unsuitable for coil embolization during the Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial (BRAT), most commonly due to unfavorable dome-to-neck ratio or small size. OBJECTIVE: To compare patients treated by coil embolization for ruptured ACoA aneurysms during the trial to those treated after the trial to determine whether advances in endovascular techniques have allowed for effective treatment of these lesions. METHODS: All cases of ruptured ACoA aneurysms treated by endovascular modalities during BRAT (2003-2007) and post-BRAT (2007-2012) were reviewed for patient and aneurysm characteristics, treatment types, and clinical and angiographic outcomes at 3-yr or last follow-up. RESULTS: The BRAT ACoA cohort included 39 patients treated with coiling (excluding those crossed over to clipping). The post-BRAT cohort included 93 patients who were significantly older (mean age, 59.5 vs 52.8 yr, P = .005) than the BRAT cohort; there were no significant cohort differences in sex, Hunt and Hess grade, or mean aneurysm size. The use of balloon remodeling was significantly higher in the post-BRAT cohort (31.2% [29/93] vs 5.1% [2/39], P = .001), as was the proportion of wide-necked aneurysms treated (66.7% [62/93] vs 30.8% [12/39], P < .001). There was no significant difference in clinical outcome or retreatment rate between the 2 cohorts (P = .90 and P = .48, respectively). CONCLUSION: ACoA lesions thought unamenable to endovascular therapy in an earlier randomized trial are now successfully coiled with increased use of adjunctive techniques, without sacrificing patient outcome or treatment durability.
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 | 0.068 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".