Hemodynamic and Anatomical Factors in Arteriovenous Malformation Clinical Presentation: 45 Case Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background: Hemodynamic factors have been implicated in hemorrhage from cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). The goal of this endovascular study is to analyze the hemodynamic variability in AVM feeders in a balanced group of ruptured and unruptured AVMs of various sizes and at both superficial and deep locations. Methods: We monitored feeder artery pressure (FP) using microcatheters in 45 patients with AVMs (16 with hemorrhage, 29 without) during superselective angiography and AVM embolization. Results: Mean FP was 49 mm Hg. Significant determinants of FP were the systemic pressure (p < 0.001), AVM size (p = 0.03), and the distance of the microcatheter tip from the Circle of Willis (p = 0.06), but not the presence of hemorrhage, patient age, or feeder artery diameter. The FP in ruptured AVMs was 7 mm Hg higher than in unruptured ones (53.8 mm Hg vs. 47.1 mm Hg, p = 0.032). The presence or absence of venous outflow stenosis and the position of the AVM nidus (superficial or deep to the cortical surface) were important anatomical predictors of AVM presentation. Conclusion: The pressure in the feeding artery supplying an AVM is the result of factors which include the systemic arterial pressure, the size of the AVM nidus, and the distance of the AVM from the Circle of Willis. The correlation between these variables makes it difficult to study the risk of hemorrhage as a function of a single factor, which may account for the variation in the conclusions of previous studies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".