Clinical Characteristics of Dural Arteriovenous Shunts in 446 Patients of Three Different Ethnicities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Dural arteriovenous shunts (DAVSs) developing in either the ventral, dorsal or lateral epidural spaces (VE, DE and LE-shunts) predictably drain in either cranio/spino-fugal or -petal directions. Associated conditions like venous outflow restrictions (VOR) may be responsible for changes in this drainage pattern. The goal of this study was to compare demographic, angiographic and clinical characteristics of different types of DAVS in Europe, South America, and Asia to find out whether the same clinical profile is present in different ethnicities. Charts and angiographic films of 446 patients with DAVS from three hospitals in Europe, Asia and South America were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical symptoms were separated into benign and aggressive and the presence or absence of cortical venous reflux (CVR) and VOR was noted. LE-shunts were present in elderly men and were always associated with CVR resulting in aggressive symptoms. VE-shunts were present in females and almost always had benign symptoms. There were no differences among the three populations for these shunts. DE-shunts in the Asian population were more aggressive secondary to a higher rate of VOR with associated CVR. VE-shunts rarely lead to CVR even in the presence of VOR, whereas LE-shunts invariably lead to CVR, irrespective of the population investigated. CVR in DE-shunts is not related to the primary disease (i.e. the shunt itself) but to associated factors that led to VOR. Since the occurrence of these varied between different ethnicities, DE-shunts were aggressive in the Asian population and benign in the European and South American populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".