Concordance in Aneurysm Size at Time of Rupture in Familial Intracranial Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- Intracranial aneurysm (IA) size and location are important determinants of aneurysm rupture risk. In familial IAs there is concordance of location; however, if such concordance exists for size is unknown. We analyzed the concordance of aneurysm size at time of rupture in familial IAs. Methods- In pairs of affected relatives with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, the ratio between the largest and the smallest aneurysm size at time of rupture was calculated. We also compared the proportion of families in which both IAs ruptured at a size < or ≥7 mm with the proportion of families in which one IA ruptured at <7 mm and another ≥7 mm. We calculated the repeatability with corresponding 95% CI for aneurysm size at time of rupture. Results- About 130 patients from 64 families were included. Of the 68 affected pairs 18 (26%) had a ratio ≤1.2, 38 (57%) had a ratio >1.2, and 12 (17%) had a ratio ≥3. We found no difference between the proportion of families (n=31; 49%) who both had IA at time of rupture <7 mm (n=20; 31%) or both ≥7 mm (n=11; 18%) and the proportion of those families with one patient with an IA <7 mm and another with an IA ≥7 mm (n=33; 51%; P=0.86). Overall, the repeatability in aneurysm size at rupture within familial IAs was 0.10 (95% CI, 0-0.35). Conclusions- There is no good concordance in aneurysm size at rupture within familial IAs. These data suggest that size of a ruptured IA in a family member should not significantly impact on the management of a familial unruptured IA in a relative.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".