P.147 Ruptured Intracranial Infectious Aneurysms: Single Canadian Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ruptured Intracranial Infected Aneurysms (IIAs) are a relatively rare phenomenon, but they portend high mortality. To our knowledge, there are no Canadian studies on IIA with paucity of data on experiences as well. Our purpose is to share experience of a single Canadian tertiary centre in managing ruptured IIA and to conduct a systematic review. Methods: Retrospective case series review of adult patients with ruptured IIA treated at our institution. Secondly, we conducted a systematic review of literature on ruptured IIA between 2011-2021 inclusive. Results: At our institution, with a total 8 cases with ruptured IIA, 4 patients were treated endovascularly and 2 by surgical bypass. For the systematic review, we included 12 non-comparative studies with a total of 547 patients with IIA. Median percentage of ruptured IIA was at least 65.2%, cases that required intervention was 23.7% for surgical cases, and 50% for endovascular cases. The overall median percentage of complications was 5.3%. Conclusions: This study highlights a single Canadian tertiary centre experience in the management of IIA and compares it to the global trends of the last 10 years in a systematic review.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".