Hemodynamic Differences Between Recurrent and Nonrecurrent Intracranial Aneurysms: Fluid Dynamics Simulations Based on MR Angiography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although the role of wall shear stress (WSS) in the initiation, growth, and rupture of intracranial aneurysms has been well studied, its influence on aneurysm recurrence after endovascular treatment requires further investigation. We aimed to compare WSS at necks of recurrent and nonrecurrent aneurysms. METHODS: Nine recurrent coil-embolized aneurysms were identified and matched with nine nonrecurrent aneurysms. Patient-specific vessel geometries reconstructed from follow-up 3-D time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography were analyzed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Absolute WSS and the percentage of abnormally low and high WSS at the aneurysm neck compared to the near artery were measured. RESULTS: The median percentage of abnormal WSS at the aneurysm neck was 49.3% for recurrent and 34.7% for nonrecurrent aneurysms (P = .011). The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for distinguishing these aneurysms according to the percentage of abnormal WSS was .86 (95% CI .62 to .98). The optimal cut-off value of 45.1% resulted in a sensitivity and a specificity of 88.89% (95% CI 51.8% to 99.7%). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that necks of recurrent aneurysms are exposed to abnormal WSS to a larger extent. Abnormal WSS may serve as a metric to distinguish them from nonrecurrent aneurysms with CFD simulations a priori.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it