Clinical Outcome of Endovascular Coil Embolization For Cerebral Aneurysms In Asian Population In Relation To Risk Factors: A 3-Year Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: This study reviews the impact of comorbidities on the success of endovascular coiling of both ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Independent risk factors reviewed were age, sex, smoking and hypertension. Methods A 3-year retrospective analysis, performed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients with cerebral aneurysms treated endovascularly in Asian population. A total of 297 patients treated at a single center were included. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by regular follow-ups. A modified Rankin Scale was used to measure the clinical outcomes in patients. Results Study showed smoking had an adverse effect on clinical outcome, with smokers 35% less likely to recover, while hypertension played a minimal role with only 15%. It was found that aneurysms are more prevalent in women but women have a better chance of recovery. Men in their 20s and 30s have the best recovery, with comorbidities playing a negligible role. Similarly, patients who were above 40 had a lower chance of recovery compared to younger patients due to comorbidities irrespective of gender. Conclusions: Asian sub-continent has different genetic marker that lead to poorer outcomes of aneurysms in women, while outcomes are similar in men and women in developed nations. Smoking does not play a major role in women’s recovery. Men with comorbidity of smoking and hypertension were seen to be at higher risk and age played a major role in recovery.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".