MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210820326 · doi:10.3171/2021.7.jns211186

Interventional outcomes for patients eligible for entry into the ARUBA clinical trial: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3210820326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Harrison Snyder, Ching‐Jen Chen, Faraz Farzad, Natasha Ironside, Ryan T. Kellogg, Andrew M. Southerland, Min S. Park, Jason P. Sheehan, Dale Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleMeta-analysisArteriovenous malformationRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)MEDLINEClinical trialIntracerebral hemorrhageSystematic reviewIntervention (counseling)SurgeryPediatricsInternal medicineSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations (ARUBA) suggested that medical management afforded outcomes superior to those following intervention for unruptured arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), but its findings have been controversial. Subsequent studies of AVMs that would have met the eligibility requirements of ARUBA have supported intervention for the management of some cases. The present meta-analysis was conducted with the object of summarizing interventional outcomes for ARUBA-eligible patients reported in the literature. METHODS: A systematic literature search (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar) for AVM intervention studies that used inclusion criteria identical to those of ARUBA (age ≥ 18 years, no history of AVM hemorrhage, no prior intervention) was performed. The primary outcome was death or symptomatic stroke. Secondary outcomes included AVM obliteration, hemorrhage, death, and poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≥ 2 at final follow-up). Bias assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the results were synthesized as pooled proportions. RESULTS: Of the 343 articles identified through database searches, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding an overall study cohort of 1909 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 11.2% of patients (pooled = 11%, 95% CI 8%-13%). The rates of AVM obliteration, hemorrhage, poor outcome, and death were 72.7% (pooled = 78%, 95% CI 70%-85%), 8.4% (pooled = 8%, 95% CI 6%-11%), 9.9% (pooled = 10%, 95% CI 7%-13%), and 3.5% (pooled = 2%, 95% CI 1%-4%), respectively. Annualized primary outcome and hemorrhage risks were 1.85 (pooled = 2.05, 95% CI 1.31-2.94) and 1.34 (pooled = 1.41, 95% CI 0.83-2.13) per 100 patient-years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention for unruptured AVMs affords acceptable outcomes for appropriately selected patients. The risk of hemorrhage following intervention compared favorably to the natural history of unruptured AVMs. The included studies were retrospective and varied in treatment and AVM characteristics, thereby limiting the generalizability of their data. Future studies from prospective registries may clarify patient, nidus, and intervention selection criteria that will refine the challenging management of patients with unruptured AVMs.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.040
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207