Endovascular Management of Intracranial Dural AVFs: Transvenous Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this third review article on the endovascular management of intracranial dural AVFs, we discuss transvenous embolization approaches. Transvenous embolization is increasingly popular and now the first-line approach for ventral dural AVFs involving the cavernous sinus and hypoglossal canal. In addition, transvenous embolization is increasingly used in lateral epidural dural AVFs in high-risk locations such as the petrous and ethmoid regions. The advantage of transvenous embolization in these locations is the ability to retrogradely embolize the draining vein and fistula while reducing the risk of ischemic cranial neuropathy or brain parenchymal infarction commonly feared from a transarterial approach. By means of coils ± ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, transvenous embolization can achieve angiographic cure rates of 80%-90% in ventral locations. Potential complications include transient cranial neuropathy, neurologic deterioration due to venous outflow obstruction, and perforation while navigating pial veins. Transvenous embolization should be considered when dural AVFs arise in proximity to the vasa nervosum or extracranial-intracranial anastomoses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".