Cognitive Outcomes After Anterior Communicating Artery Aneurysm Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The long-term cognitive and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after treatment of ruptured anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysms are unknown. Methods Potential participants were all consecutive patients with ruptured ACoA aneurysms who were treated at one institution from July 1992 to December 2008. All potential participants were asked to complete the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ), Center for Epidemiology Studies-Depression (CES-D) questionnaire, Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, and Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-Modified (TICS-M). Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed for baseline demographics and clinical status, intra-operative details, and post-operative course. Reporting of cognitive and QoL assessment results was stratified by treatment method (endovascular coil embolization and surgical clipping by pterional craniotomy or orbitocranial craniotomy). Results In total, 82 patients (18 treated with coiling, 27 by orbitocranial craniotomy, and 37 by pterional craniotomy) were included in this study. In total, 32 patients (9 treated by coiling, 11 by orbitocranial craniotomy, and 16 by pterional craniotomy) completed follow-up cognitive and QoL questionnaires. The mean follow-up for patients who completed the questionnaires was 8.64±3.81 years. The three groups did not differ in questionnaires assessing cognitive status (TICS-M p=0.114, CFQ p=0.111). Moreover, there were no observed differences in QoL or depression scores between the three groups. Conclusions At long-term follow-up, QoL, cognitive, and depression test scores of patients with ruptured ACoA aneurysms are similar across open surgery and coiling modalities. Our results emphasize the importance of considering long-term outcomes with validated daily measures of functioning when reporting on outcomes after treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Larger prospective studies are required to further explore the results.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".