MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381715011 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.123.042515

Outcome Evaluation of Repeat Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations

2023· article· en· W4381715011 on OpenAlexaff
Georgios Mantziaris, Stylianos Pikis, Chloé Dumot, Sam Dayawansa, Roman Liščák, Jaromír May, Cheng‐Chia Lee, Huai‐Che Yang, Nuria Martínez Moreno, Roberto Martínez Álvarez, L. Dade Lunsford, Ajay Niranjan, Zhishuo Wei, Priyanka Srinivasan, Lilly W. Tang, Ahmed M. Nabeel, Wael A. Reda, Sameh R. Tawadros, Khaled Abdelkarim, Amr M. N. El-Shehaby, Reem M. Emad, Ahmed Hesham Elazzazi, Selçuk Peker, Yavuz Samancı, Varun Padmanaban, Francis J. Jareczek, James McInerney, Kevin M. Cockroft, David Mathieu, Salman Aldakhil, Juan Diego Alzate, Douglas Kondziolka, Manjul Tripathi, Joshua D. Palmer, Rituraj Upadhyay, Michelle Lin, Gabriel Zada, Cheng Yu, Christopher P. Cifarelli, Daniel T. Cifarelli, Zhiyuan Xu, Jason P. Sheehan

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeRadiosurgeryArteriovenous malformationRetrospective cohort studyCohortIntracranial Arteriovenous MalformationsMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryRadiologyCerebral angiographyRadiation therapyAngiographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Repeat stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for persistent cerebral arteriovenous malformation (AVM) has generally favorable patient outcomes. However, reporting studies are limited by small patient numbers and single-institution biases. The purpose of this study was to provide the combined experience of multiple centers, in an effort to fully define the role of repeat SRS for patients with arteriovenous malformation. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included patients treated with repeat, single-fraction SRS between 1987 and 2022. Follow-up began at repeat SRS. The primary outcome was a favorable patient outcome, defined as a composite of nidus obliteration in the absence of hemorrhage or radiation-induced neurological deterioration. Secondary outcomes were obliteration, hemorrhage risk, and symptomatic radiation-induced changes. Competing risk analysis was performed to compute yearly rates and identify predictors for each outcome. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 505 patients (254 [50.3%] males; median [interquartile range] age, 34 [15] years) from 14 centers. The median clinical and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up was 52 (interquartile range, 61) and 47 (interquartile range, 52) months, respectively. At last follow-up, favorable outcome was achieved by 268 (53.1%) patients (5-year probability, 50% [95% CI, 45%–55%]) and obliteration by 300 (59.4%) patients (5-year probability, 56% [95% CI, 51%–61%]). Twenty-eight patients (5.6%) experienced post-SRS hemorrhage with an annual incidence rate of 1.38 per 100 patient-years. Symptomatic radiation-induced changes were evident in 28 (5.6%) patients, with most occurring in the first 3 years. Larger nidus volumes (between 2 and 4 cm 3 , subdistribution hazard, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.44–0.86]; P =0.005; >4 cm 3 , subdistribution hazard, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.32–0.7]; P <0.001) and brainstem/basal ganglia involvement (subdistribution hazard, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.45–0.81]; P <0.001) were associated with reduced probability of favorable outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat SRS confers reasonable obliteration rates with a low complication risk. With most complications occurring in the first 3 years, extending the latency period to 5 years generally increases the rate of favorable patient outcomes and reduces the necessity of a third intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207