Five-year results of randomized bioactive versus bare metal coils in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: the Matrix and Platinum Science (MAPS) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background No randomized trial of intracranial aneurysm coiling has compared long-term efficacy of polymer-modified coils to bare metal coils (BMCs). We report 5-year results comparing Matrix 2 coils to BMCs. The primary objective was to compare the rates of target aneurysm recurrence (TAR) at 12 months. Secondary objectives included angiographic outcomes at TAR or 12 months and TAR at 5 years. Methods A total of 626 patients were randomized to BMCs or Matrix 2 coils. Detailed methods and 1-year results have been published previously. Results Of 580 patients eligible for 5-year follow-up, 431 (74.3%) completed follow-up or reached TAR. Matrix 2 coils were non-inferior to BMCs (P=0.8) but did not confer any benefit. Core lab reported post-treatment residual aneurysm filling (Raymond III) correlated with TAR (P<0.0001) and with aneurysm hemorrhage after treatment (P<0.008). Repeat aneurysmal hemorrhage after treatment, but before hospital discharge, occurred in three patients treated for acutely ruptured aneurysms. Additionally, two patients treated for unruptured aneurysms experienced a first hemorrhage during follow-up. All five hemorrhages resulted from aneurysms with Raymond III residual aneurysm filling persisting after initial treatment. After 5 years follow-up, 2/626 (0.3%) patients are known to have had target aneurysm rupture following hospital discharge. The annualized rate of delayed hemorrhage after coiling was 2/398/5=0.001 (0.1%) per year for unruptured aneurysms and 0 for ruptured aneurysms. Conclusions After 5 years Matrix 2 coils were non-inferior to BMCs but no benefit was demonstrated. Post-treatment residual angiographic aneurysm filling (Raymond III) is strongly associated with TAR (P<0.0001) and post-treatment aneurysmal hemorrhage (P=0.008).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".