Endosaccular Flow Disruption: A New Frontier in Endovascular Aneurysm Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow modification has caused a paradigm shift in the management of intracranial aneurysms. Since the FDA approval of the Pipeline Embolization Device (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) in 2011, it has grown to become the modality of choice for a range of carefully selected lesions, previously not amenable to conventional endovascular techniques. While the vast majority of flow-diverting stents operate from within the parent artery (ie, endoluminal stents), providing a scaffold for endothelial cells growth at the aneurysmal neck while inducing intra-aneurysmal thrombosis, a smaller subset of endosaccular flow disruptors act from within the lesions themselves. To date, these devices have been used mostly in Europe, while only utilized on a trial basis in North America. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no dedicated review of these devices. We therefore sought to present a comprehensive review of currently available endosaccular flow disruptors along with high-resolution schematics, presented with up-to-date available literature discussing their technical indications, procedural safety, and reported outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".