The Safety and Efficiency of Parent Artery Occlusion according to the Location of Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Reconstructive treatment methods for aneurysms are increasing, but their use over traditional endovascular parent artery occlusion (PAO) remains debated.The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of planned intra-and extracranial PAO. Materials and Methods:A retrospective chart review was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent endovascular treatment for PAO at our institution between 1999 and 2017.Patients who underwent planned and intentional PAO were included in the study.Information was collected on demographics, clinical symptoms, imaging findings, and follow-up outcomes.Findings were presented according to PAO performed intra-and extra-cranially.Results: Among 1000 endovascular treatment, 32 patients (19 women; 13 men; mean age 53±13.2years) had planned PAO.PAO was performed intracranially in 11 and extracranially in 21 patients.Permanent neurological deficits were seen in 36.36% and 4.76% of intracranial and extracranial PAO, respectively.Intracranial PAO was independently associated with higher neurological complications than extracranial PAO (odds ratio: 11.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.83-158.07;p-value: 0.02).No patients with PAO with balloon test occlusion (BTO) had any perioperative neurological complications.Conclusion: Efficacy of PAO in our small study was 100%.Intracranial PAO was an independent predictor for associated neurological morbidity compared to extracranial PAO.BTO appeared to help avoid neurological complications.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".