Transvenous embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of transvenous embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVM) remains relatively poorly understood. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine outcomes of transvenous embolization of brain AVMs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Data sources include Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and the Web of Science. All case series with four or more patients receiving transvenous embolization of brain AVMs published before September 2017 were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 8 series with 66 patients were included. All-cause mortality rate was 6.0% (95% CI: 0.0-11.0%). There were no cases of treatment related mortality. Overall good functional outcome rates were 89.0% (95% CI: 82.0-96.0%). Complete occlusion rates were 96.0% (95% CI: 91.0-100.0%). Technical complications rates were 8.0% (95% CI: 2.0-14.0%). Additional treatment rates were 6.0% (95% CI: 0.0-11.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving transvenous embolization of AVMs experience good long-term clinical outcomes in nearly 90% of highly selected cases. Further large case series are needed to confirm the result.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".