Intrasaccular flow disruption for ruptured aneurysms: an international multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device is a novel intrasaccular flow disruptor tailored for bifurcation aneurysms. We aim to describe the degree of aneurysm occlusion at the latest follow-up, and the rate of complications of aneurysms treated with the WEB device stratified according to rupture status. METHODS: Our data were taken from the WorldWideWeb Consortium, an international multicenter cohort including patients treated with the WEB device. Aneurysms were classified into two groups: ruptured and unruptured. We compared clinical and radiologic outcomes of both groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was done to match according to age, gender, bifurcation, location, prior treatment, neck, height, dome width, daughter sac, incorporated branch, pretreatment antiplatelets, and last imaging follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 676 patients with 691 intracranial aneurysms (529 unruptured and 162 ruptured) treated with the WEB device. The PSM analysis had 55 pairs. In both the unmatched (85.8% vs 84.3%, p=0.692) and matched (94.4% vs 83.3%, p=0.066) cohorts there was no significant difference in the adequate occlusion rate at the last follow-up. Likewise, there were no significant differences in both ischemic and hemorrhagic complications between the two groups. There was no documented aneurysm rebleeding after WEB device implantation. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in both the radiologic outcomes and complications between unruptured and ruptured aneurysms. Our findings support the feasibility of treatment of ruptured aneurysms with the WEB device.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".