Endovascular Intervention Versus Surgery in Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms in Equipoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose— The benefits of endovascular intervention over surgery in the treatment of ruptured aneurysms of anterior circulation remains uncertain. Recently, published studies did not find superiority of endovascular intervention, challenging earlier evidence from a clinical trial. The earlier evidence also had a higher than average proportion of patients in good clinical status, leading to uncertainty about external validity of earlier trials. Methods— We performed a systematic review of studies after 2005 under a protocol published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Primary outcomes were posttreatment rebleeding and adverse events (procedural complications). Secondary outcomes were dependency at 3 to 6 and 12 months, delayed cerebral ischemia, and seizures. Results— Rebleeding was more frequent after endovascular intervention (Peto OR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.29–3.70]; 3104 participants; 15 studies; I 2 =0%, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation: very low certainty of evidence). Fewer adverse events were reported with the endovascular intervention (RR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.53–0.95]; 1661 participants; 11 studies; I 2 =14%, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation: low certainty of evidence). Three to six months dependency (RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73–0.93]; 4081 participants; 18 studies; I 2 =15%, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation: low certainty of evidence) and 12-month dependency (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66–0.86]; 1981 participants; 10 studies; I 2 =0%, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation: low certainty of evidence) were lower after endovascular intervention. Conclusions— This study found consistent results between recent studies and the earlier evidence, in that endovascular intervention results in lower chance of dependency compared with surgery for repair of ruptured anterior circulation aneurysms. A lower proportion of patients in good clinical status in this review supports the application of the earlier evidence. Registration— URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO . Unique identifier: CRD42018090396.
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 | 0.081 | 0.224 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".