Direct Versus Indirect Revascularization for Moyamoya: a Large Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moyamoya is a chronic occlusive cerebrovascular disease of unknown etiology causing neovascularization of the lenticulostriate collaterals at the base of the brain. Although revascularization surgery is the most effective treatment for moyamoya, there is still no consensus on the best surgical treatment modality as different studies provide different outcomes. OBJECTIVE: In this large case series, we compare the outcomes of direct (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR) and compare our results to the literature in order to reflect on the best revascularization modality for moyamoya. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology guidelines of moyamoya affected hemispheres treated with DR and IR surgeries across 13 academic institutions predominantly in North America. All patients who underwent surgical revascularization of their moyamoya-affected hemispheres were included in the study. The primary outcome of the study was the rate of symptomatic strokes. RESULTS: The rates of symptomatic strokes across 515 disease-affected hemispheres were comparable between the two cohorts (11.6% in the DR cohort vs 9.6% in the IR cohort, OR 1.238 (95% CI 0.651 to 2.354), p=0.514). The rate of total perioperative strokes was slightly higher in the DR cohort (6.1% for DR vs 2.0% for IR, OR 3.129 (95% CI 0.991 to 9.875), p=0.052). The rate of total follow-up strokes was slightly higher in the IR cohort (8.1% vs 6.6%, OR 0.799 (95% CI 0.374 to 1.709) p=0.563). CONCLUSION: Since both modalities showed comparable rates of overall total strokes, both modalities of revascularization can be performed depending on the patient's risk assessment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".