Prevalence of Intracranial Aneurysms in Patients With Coarctation of the Aorta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coarctation of the aorta (CoA) is associated with intracranial aneurysms (IAs); however, the prevalence and risk factors (RFs) are not well described. Current practice guidelines offer inconsistent recommendations on screening for IAs in this patient population ranging from “not recommended” (European Society of Cardiology 2020) to “recommended” (American Heart Association 2018). The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and RFs for IAs in patients with CoA. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies utilizing computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiographic screening for IAs in patients with CoA. Five cohort studies were included, representing 442 patients. The pooled prevalence of IAs in patients with CoA was 3.8% [95% CI: 0.1%-12.3%]. The results met our prespecified definition for high heterogeneity. Of 5 RFs evaluated, only hypertension was associated with the development of IAs with an odds ratio of 3.1 [95% CI: 1.1-8.2; P = 0.03]. There was an observed downward trend over time in the prevalence of IAs among the studies included. The development of IAs is likely multifactorial in etiology and there may be modifiable RFs in their development. Considering the low prevalence of IAs in the pooled result, routine screening of patients with CoA for IAs is likely of low-value.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".