Endovascular treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Complex intracranial aneurysms (CIA) are heterogenous group of intracranial vascular malformations. Due to its giant size, difficult location, broad neck, branches arising from the aneurysm, wall structure, calcification, presence of intraluminal thrombus or previous treatments it requires more careful approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate endovascular treatment results of CIA in our Department. Material and methods In order to differentiate CIA from all the aneurysms, treated endovascularly in years 2008-2014, authors proposed their own qualification criteria. Additionally, subgroup of patients with CIA with simultaneous subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) was divided. Clinical outcomes of patients were assessed with Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), while radiological outcomes were assessed with Montreal Scale. Aneurysm localization, incidence of aborted procedures, intraoperative complications were also evaluated. Results Internal carotid artery was the most common localization in both CIA and non-complex (nCIA) groups. Incidence of aborted procedures was significantly higher in CIA group than in nCIA (25% vs. 7%; p < 0.01). CIA group had worse Montreal scores then nCIA group (1.90 vs. 1.49; p < 0.01). Clinical outcome in GOS scale in patients with SAH and CIA was significantly worse than in SAH and nCIA (2.86 vs. 4.06; p = 0.04). Conclusions To conclude, proposed criteria of CIA should be taken into consideration during diagnosis and qualification to invasive treatment. Classifying aneurysm as CIA is related to greater possibility of aborting endovascular procedure due to technical difficulties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".