Results of revascularizing operations performed in the acute period of subarachnoid hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective is an assessment of long-term results of cerebral revascularization performed in the acute period of subarachnoid hemorrhage due to rupture of cerebral aneurysms. Materials and methods. This cross-sectional study includes 74 patients, operated in N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute for Emergency Medicine in the acute period of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group contained patients with EC—IC bypass performed in the acute period of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. The Control group contained patients without bypass. In the long-term period, 11 patients were examined. Computed tomography of cerebral vessels, duplex ultrasound examination of the aortic arch, brachiocephalic arteries and intracranial vessels, transcranial Doppler ultrasonography with a breathing function test, single-photon emission computed tomography of the brain followed by stress test with acetazolamide, Modified Renkin Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Index Bartel, The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Holms-Rahe were performed. For descriptive results, a mathematical model was used. Results. The best treatment outcomes in severe patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and cerebral ischemia were observed when performing simultaneous clipping of the aneurysm and EC-IC bypass (57.1 % versus 41.0 %) there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes. EC-IC bypass functioned in 37.5 % of cases. The rate and acceleration of the fall in volumetric blood flow and the passage of blood from the aortic bulb to the cerebral arterioles affect the perfusion values in the region of the brain concerned. Evaluation of long-term results of simultaneous interventions revealed persistent disturbances in the regulation of cerebral blood flow at the microcirculatory level. Patients with EC-IC bypass had a higher level of cognitive function and stress potential. Conclusion. The results of this study showed us the necessity for a comprehensive exploration of cerebral blood flow.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".