Comparing treatment outcomes of various intracranial bifurcation aneurysms locations using the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device has Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of wide-necked intracranial bifurcation aneurysms. The WEB device has been shown to result in adequate occlusion in bifurcation aneurysms overall, but its usefulness in the individual bifurcation locations has been evaluated separately only in few case series, which were limited by small sample sizes. OBJECTIVE: To compare angiographic and clinical outcomes after treatment of bifurcation aneurysms at various locations, including anterior communicating artery (AComA), anterior cerebral artery (ACA) bifurcation distal to AComA, basilar tip, internal carotid artery (ICA) bifurcation, and middle cerebral artery (MCA) bifurcation aneurysms using the WEB device. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted at 22 academic institutions worldwide to compare treatment outcomes of patients with intracranial bifurcation aneurysms using the WEB device. Data include patient and aneurysm characteristics, procedural details, angiographic and functional outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 572 aneurysms were included. MCA (36%), AComA (35.7%), and basilar tip (18.9%) aneurysms were most common. The rate of adequate aneurysm occlusion was significantly higher for basilar tip (91.6%) and ICA bifurcation (96.7%) aneurysms and lower for ACA bifurcation (71.4%) and AComA (80.6%) aneurysms (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the most extensive study to date that compares the treatment of different intracranial bifurcation aneurysms using the WEB device. Basilar tip and ICA bifurcation aneurysms showed significantly higher rates of aneurysm occlusion than other locations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".