Woven EndoBridge versus stent-assisted coil embolization of cerebral bifurcation aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Stent-assisted coil (SAC) embolization has been the mainstay endovascular treatment for bifurcation aneurysms. The recent introduction of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device has presented an alternative endovascular treatment modality for these aneurysms. Direct comparisons of outcomes between these two modalities are limited in the literature. Here, the authors compared the outcomes of bifurcation aneurysms treated with SAC and WEB devices. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study comprised 148 bifurcation aneurysms that were treated endovascularly with SAC or WEB devices between 2011 and 2019. The primary outcome was complete occlusion of the aneurysm at 6 months on catheter angiography. RESULTS: The SAC and WEB cohorts comprised 85 and 63 aneurysms, respectively. The baseline characteristics were well balanced after inverse probability weight (IPW) adjustment, except for smoking status. The 6-month complete occlusion rate was higher in the WEB cohort than the SAC cohort (67.4% vs 40.6%; unadjusted OR [95% CI] 3.014 [1.385-6.563], p = 0.005). However, this difference in complete occlusion rates did not remain significant after IPW adjustment and multiple imputations. The neck remnant rate was lower in the WEB cohort than the SAC cohort (20% vs 50%; OR [95% CI] 0.250 [0.107-0.584], p = 0.001), and this difference remained significant after IPW adjustment (OR [95% CI] 0.304 [0.116-0.795], p = 0.015) and multiple imputations. CONCLUSIONS: Use of SAC and WEB demonstrated comparable 6-month complete occlusion rates for bifurcation aneurysms. WEB appeared to be associated with a lower rate of neck remnant at 6 and 12 months compared with SAC. WEB was also associated with fewer complications and decreased retreatment rates compared with SAC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".