MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient and aneurysm factors associated with aneurysm recanalization after coiling

2021· article· en· W3209243040 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Pierot, Coralie Barbe, A Thierry, Fouzi Bala, François Eugène, Christophe Cognard, Denis Herbreteau, Stéphane Velasco, Emmanuel Chabert, Hubert Desal, Mohamed Aggour, Christine Rodriguez-Régent, Sophie Gallas, Jacques Sédat, Gaultier Marnat, Nader Sourour, Arturo Consoli, Chrysanthi Papagiannaki, Laurent Spelle, Phil White

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAneurysmOcclusionSurgeryEndovascular treatmentProspective cohort studyRadiologyEndovascular coilingBalloonCohortInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: One limitation of the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms is aneurysm recanalization. The Analysis of Recanalization after Endovascular Treatment of intracranial Aneurysm (ARETA) study is a prospective multicenter cohort study evaluating the factors associated with recanalization after endovascular treatment. METHODS: The current analysis is focused on patients treated by coiling or balloon-assisted coiling (BAC). Postoperative, mid-term vascular imaging, and evolution of aneurysm occlusion were independently evaluated by two neuroradiologists. A 3-grade scale was used for aneurysm occlusion (complete occlusion, neck remnant, and aneurysm remnant) and for occlusion evolution (improved, stable, and worsened). Recanalization was defined as any worsening of aneurysm occlusion. RESULTS: Between December 2013 and May 2015, 16 French neurointerventional departments enrolled 1289 patients. A total of 945 aneurysms in 908 patients were treated with coiling or BAC. The overall rate of aneurysm recanalization at mid-term follow-up was 29.5% (95% CI 26.6% to 32.4%): 28.9% and 30.3% in the coiling and BAC groups, respectively. In multivariate analyses factors independently associated with recanalization were current smoking (36.6% in current smokers vs 24.5% in current non-smokers (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.4); p=0.0001), ruptured status (31.9% in ruptured aneurysms vs 25.1% in unruptured (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1); p=0.006), aneurysm size ≥10 mm (48.8% vs 26.5% in aneurysms <10 mm (OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.9); p<0.0001), wide neck (32.1% vs 25.8% in narrow neck (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1); p=0.02), and MCA location (34.3% vs 28.3% in other locations (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1); p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Several factors are identified by the ARETA study as playing a role in aneurysm recanalization after coiling: current smoking, aneurysm status (ruptured), aneurysm size (≥10 mm), neck size (wide neck), and aneurysm location (middle cerebral artery). This finding has important consequences in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: URL: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01942512.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroInterventional SurgerySame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207