Treatment of blood blister aneurysms of the internal carotid artery with flow diversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood blister aneurysms (BBA) are a rare subset of intracranial aneurysms that represent a therapeutic challenge from both a surgical and endovascular perspective. OBJECTIVE: To report multicenter experience with flow diversion exclusively for BBA, located at non-branching segments along the anteromedial wall of the supraclinoidal internal carotid artery (ICA). METHODS: Consecutive cases of BBA located at non-branching segments along the anteromedial wall of the supraclinoidal ICA treated with flow diversion were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: 49 patients with 51 BBA of the ICA treated with devices to achieve the flow diversion effect were identified. 43 patients with 45 BBA of the ICA were treated with the pipeline embolization device and were included in the final analysis. Angiographic follow-up data were available for 30 patients (32 aneurysms in total); 87.5% of aneurysms (28/32) showed complete obliteration, 9.4% (3/32) showed reduced filling, and 3.1% (1/32) persistent filling. There was no difference between the size of aneurysm (≤2 mm vs >2 mm) or the use of adjunct coiling and complete occlusion of the aneurysm on follow-up (P=0.354 and P=0.865, respectively). Clinical follow-up data were available for 38 of 43 patients. 68% of patients (26/38) had a good clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale score of 0-2) at 3 months. There were 7 (16%) immediate procedural and 2 (5%) delayed complications, with 1 case of fatal delayed re-rupture after the initial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the use of a flow diversion technique as a safe and effective therapeutic modality for BBA of the supraclinoid ICA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".