Stent-assisted Woven EndoBridge device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: an international multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device is an intrasaccular flow disruptor designed for wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms. These aneurysms may require the use of a concomitant stent. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing stent-assisted WEB treatment. In addition, the authors also sought to determine the predictors of a concomitant stent in aneurysms treated with the WEB device. METHODS: The data for this study were taken from the WorldWideWEB Consortium, an international multicenter cohort including patients treated with the WEB device. Aneurysms were classified into two groups based on treatment: stent-assisted WEB and WEB device alone. The authors compared clinical and radiological outcomes of both groups. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors that predispose to stent use. RESULTS: The study included 691 intracranial aneurysms (31 with stents and 660 without stents) treated with the WEB device. The adequate occlusion status did not differ between the two groups at the latest follow-up (83.3% vs 85.6%, p = 0.915). Patients who underwent stenting had more thromboembolic (32.3% vs 6.5%, p < 0.001) and procedural (16.1% vs 3.0%, p < 0.001) complications. Aneurysms treated with a concomitant stent had wider necks, greater heights, and lower dome-to-neck ratios. Increasing neck size was the only significant predictor for stent use. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that there is no difference in the degree of aneurysm occlusion between the two groups; however, complications were more frequent in the stent group. In addition, a wider aneurysm neck predisposes to stent assistance in WEB-treated aneurysms.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".