O-014 Cerecyte coil trial: the angiographic outcome of endovascular coiling in patients with ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated with cerecyte coils compared with bare platinum coils. Results of a prospective randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To report the 6 month angiographic results in patients treated with Cerecyte or bare platinum coils in a prospective randomized trial. Materials and methods 500 patients undergoing coil treatment of a ruptured or unruptured cerebral aneurysm in 23 centers in Europe, North America and Japan were randomly assigned to receive either Cerecyte Coils or bare platinum coils. The primary objective was to determine if Cerecyte coils improved the angiographic outcome on follow-up digital angiography 6 months after treatment. Angiographic follow-up was also obtained at 12–24 months after enrollment. Imaging data were transferred to a core laboratory on CD and uploaded into a PACS system and analyzed blind by an experienced neuroradiologist. Secondary objectives included whether Cerecyte coils reduced major recurrence or the need for aneurysm retreatment. Angiographic assessment was carried out by an independent core laboratory blind to the treatment allocation. Success was defined in the protocol as ‘complete angiographic occlusion, improvement or no change in the angiographic appearances from the postprocedural angiography’. Results The proportion of patients with success on the primary outcome, minor and major recurrence and retreatment rates will be reported at the first follow-up and the frequency of late recurrence of the second follow-up will be reported for all patients with available data. Conclusion The study will provide objective evidence whether Cerecyte coils improve angiographic outcome after coil treatment of cerebral aneurysms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".