Transradial Neuroendovascular Procedures in Adolescents: Initial Single-Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:</h3> The feasibility and safety of transradial angiography is not established outside the adult literature. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of transradial access for neuroangiography in adolescents. <h3>MATERIALS AND METHODS:</h3> A retrospective case-control study was performed, comparing transradial neuroendovascular procedures in adolescents (age range, 10–18 years) with an age- and procedure-matched cohort of transfemoral neuroendovascular procedures. Clinical and procedural details, including type of procedure, conversion rate, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, complications, and readmissions, were reported by descriptive statistics or measures of central tendency and compared using a <i>t</i> test or nonparametric equivalent. A <i>P</i> value < .05 was considered statistically significant. <h3>RESULTS:</h3> Twenty adolescents (mean age, 14.6 [SD, 1.7] years, M/F ratio = 9:11) who underwent transradial neuroangiography were compared against 20 adolescents (mean age, 14.4 [SD, 2.1 ] years, M/F ratio = 12:8) who underwent transfemoral neuroangiography. We found no significant difference in procedural success (0% conversion rate), fluoroscopy times (33.7 [SD, 40.2] minutes versus 23.3 [SD, 26.2] minutes, <i>P</i> = .34) and radiation dose (150.9 [SD, 133.7] Gy×cm<sup>2</sup> and 122.9 [SD, 79.7] Gy×cm,<sup>2</sup><i>P</i> = .43) There were 2 self-limiting postprocedural complications in the transradial group. There were no major hemorrhages, need for further interventions, or readmissions in either group. <h3>CONCLUSIONS:</h3> The benefits of transradial angiography described for adults can likely be safely extended to adolescents. These are important data before transitioning to smaller children and should be prospectively evaluated in a larger cohort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".