Competitive flow diversion of multiple P1 aneurysms: proposed classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the case of a patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage and three aneurysms arising from the posterior communicating artery (Pcomm)-P1 complex, treated with endovascular coiling and competitive flow diversion. The largest and likely ruptured Pcomm aneurysm was treated with traditional coiling. Two smaller potentially ruptured aneurysms arose from the distal right posterior cerebral artery (PCA) P1 segment. After a failed attempt to treat with conventional flow diversion across the PCA-P1 segment, the P1 aneurysms were successfully treated with competitive flow diversion distal to the PCA-P1 segment from Pcomm to the P2 segment. Over 12 months, competitive flow diversion redirected flow to the right PCA territory via the internal carotid artery-Pcomm-P2, reducing the size of the PCA-P1 segment and obliterating the P1 aneurysms. Competitive flow diversion treatment should be considered for aneurysms occurring at the circle of Willis when traditional methods are not feasible. Herein, we introduce a novel classification for competitive flow diversion treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".