P.113 Case series, systematic review and meta-analysis of basilar bifurcation aneurysms treated between 2001 – 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In aneurysms overall, a lower rate of recanalization in stent assisted coiling vs coiling alone has been observed without an increase in morbidity. This study aims to stratify and compare degree of occlusion outcome by treatment modalities. Secondarily, this study aims to stratify and compare postoperative adverse events. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Study center were reviewed for inclusion. We performed meta-regressions, bias analysis and fail-safe N. We controlled for the quality of the studies. Results: 396 nonduplicated patients were separated into 4 groups: microsurgical, stent-assisted coiling, coiling, stent only. Stent-assisted coiling has lower rate of retreatment (17 vs 24%) and higher rehemorrhage (5% vs 3%) compared to coiling. Stent-assisted has higher rates of complete occlusion (55% vs 45%) and lower rate of residual aneurysm (15% vs 23%) compared to coiling. Comparative analyses were performed. Microsurgical remained the most morbid modality with the best rate of complete occlusion (93%) and lowest rehemorrhage (2%) and retreatment rate (5%). Conclusions: This is the first and largest meta-analysis focusing on patients treated for basilar apex aneurysm. To our knowledge, this is the first study to stratify and compare degree of occlusion per treatment modality. This study provides benchmark numbers to guide clinicians.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".