The RISE trial: A Randomized Trial on Intra-Saccular Endobridge devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms (WNBA) are a difficult subset of aneurysms to successfully repair endovascularly, and a number of treatment adjuncts have been designed to improve on the results of coiling, including stenting and flow diversion of the parent vessel. Surgical clipping is commonly performed for certain WNBAs, such as middle cerebral aneurysms, in some centres. Intra-saccular flow diversion (ISFD) using the Woven Endo-Bridge (WEB) or similar devices, has been developed as a new endovascular alternative to coiling for WNBAs. Meta-analyses of case series suggest satisfactory results, both in terms of safety and efficacy, but in the absence of randomized evidence, whether ISFD leads to better outcomes for patients with WNBA remains unknown. There is a need to offer ISFD within the context of a randomized care trial. METHODS: The proposed trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled care trial comparing ISFD and best conventional management option (surgical or endovascular), as determined by the treating physician prior to randomized allocation. At least 250 patients will be recruited in at least 10 centres over a four-year period, and followed for one year, to show that ISFD can increase the incidence of successful therapy from 75 to 90% of patients, defined as complete or near-complete occlusion of the aneurysm AND a good clinical outcome (mRS ≤ 2) at one year. The trial will be followed by an independent data safety monitoring committee to assure the safety of participants. CONCLUSION: Introduction of intra-saccular flow diversion can be accomplished within a care trial context.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".