The Changing Landscape of Treatment for Intracranial Aneurysm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a significant transformation in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) over the past century, with the most pivotal changes occurring in the past three decades. To characterize this evolution, we assessed the number of articles published on various procedures for the treatment of IA as a measure of their interest and usage over time. We separated our analysis into two main areas: surgical and endovascular approaches. We further subdivided these two main categories into clipping and bypass for surgery, and coiling, flow diversion, and liquid material embolization for endovascular approaches. We found 5956 publications on open surgical approaches in the 70-year period from 1947 to 2017, with papers on clipping (n = 4204), being the most common. We found 8602 endovascular publications beginning in 1964, with most of the activity taking place in the late 1990s and beyond. Coiling had the most publications of the endovascular approaches (n = 5436). In 1999, the number of annual publications on endovascular treatments surpassed those of open surgery, signaling a crossover point in the IA literature. The same trend continues to this date.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".