When Two Is Better than One
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delivery of most flow diverters (FD) requires larger, and thus stiffer microcatheters (0.021-0.027in.) which can pose challenges to intracranial navigation. The concomitant use of two microwires within one microcatheter, also known as the buddy-wire technique, may be helpful for navigation and support in challenging situations. METHODS: We analyzed all flow diverter procedures in our prospectively collected database. We recorded all patient-related, anatomical and procedural information. We performed univariate statistics and technical descriptions. RESULTS: In total, 208 consecutive patients treated with a FD at our institution between July 2014 and August 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. In 17 patients the buddy-wire technique was used (mean age 63 years, range 31-87 years: 16 female). Aneurysms were located at the petrous, cavernous, supraophthalmic internal carotid artery, and a proximal M2 branch in 2, 7, 7 and 1 patient(s), respectively. In all cases a 0.027in. microcatheter was used for device deployment. In 14 patients with a wide-necked aneurysm the buddy-wire provided additional support to advance the microcatheter and mitigated the ledge between the aneurysm neck and the parent artery or a side branch. In two giant cavernous aneurysms treated with telescoping FDs, the buddy-wire was used to re-enter the proximal end of the foreshortened FD. CONCLUSION: The buddy-wire is a useful technique in FD procedures to prevent herniation of the microcatheter into the aneurysm sack, in wide-necked aneurysms to mitigate the ledge effect between the aneurysm neck and the parent artery where the microcatheter tip may get stuck, or to enable re-entry into a foreshortened FD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.022 |
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".