Use of the neuroform atlas for stenting of intracranial atherosclerotic disease: Clinical and angiographic outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundIntracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a potential cause of ischemic stroke. Treatment of ICAD can include intracranial stenting. There are specifically designed stents for this use-case; however, less is known about the off-label use of the Neuroform Atlas stent. In this study, we describe the outcomes of the Neuroform Atlas stent for treatment of ICAD.MethodsAdult patients with symptomatic ICAD failing best medical treatment undergoing elective intracranial stenting using the Neuroform Atlas stent between November 2018 and March 2021 were included. Patient demographics, procedure-related details and clinical and imaging outcomes were analyzed.ResultsEighteen patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up duration of 9.6 ± 6.8 (standard deviation) months. There were two procedure-related mortalities (one massive intracranial hemorrhage and one groin site complication with sepsis). Fifteen patients were alive at the 6-month follow-up, all with satisfactory stent patency on follow-up imaging without any new ischemic events. Modified Rankin Scale at latest follow-up was 1.9 (interquartile range 5).ConclusionIn this single-center consecutive series, intracranial stenting with the Neuroform Atlas stent was a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic ICAD patients failing best medical management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".