Comparison of PED and FRED flow diverters for posterior circulation aneurysms: a propensity score matched cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flow diversion is a common endovascular treatment for cerebral aneurysms, but studies comparing different types of flow diverters are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To perform a propensity score matched cohort study comparing the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and Flow Redirection Intraluminal Device (FRED) for posterior circulation aneurysms. METHODS: Consecutive aneurysms of the posterior circulation treated at 25 neurovascular centers with either PED or FRED were collected. Propensity score matching was used to control for age, duration of follow-up imaging, adjunctive coiling, and aneurysm location, size, and morphology; previously ruptured aneurysms were excluded. The two devices were compared for the following outcomes: procedural complications, aneurysm occlusion, and functional outcome. RESULTS: A total of 375 aneurysms of the posterior circulation were treated in 369 patients. The PED was used in 285 (77.2%) and FRED in 84 (22.8%) procedures. Aneurysms treated with the PED were more commonly fusiform and larger than those treated with FRED. To account for these important differences, propensity score matching was performed resulting in 33 PED and FRED unruptured aneurysm pairs. No differences were found in occlusion status and neurologic thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications between the two devices. The proportion of patients with favorable functional outcome was higher with FRED (100% vs 87.9%, p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Comparative analysis of PED and FRED for the treatment of unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms did not identify significant differences in aneurysm occlusion or neurologic complications. Variations in functional outcomes warrant additional investigations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".