Embolization of middle meningeal artery for chronic subdural hematoma: Do we have sufficient evidence?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embolization of middle meningeal artery (EMMA) for chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is growing in popularity over the last two decade. Several randomized control trials are underway across the world. Indeed, the recent presentation of results from the EMBOLISE (embolization of the middle meningeal artery with onyx liquid embolic system in the treatment of subacute and chronic subdural hematoma), MAGIC-MT (middle meningeal artery treatment) and STEM (squid trial for the embolization of the MMA for the treatment of cSDH) trials at the International Stroke Congress marks a significant development in the field of neurointerventional radiology. The absence of level 1 evidence for EMMA in cSDH underscores the importance of these trials and the need for rigorous evaluation of their results. While the initial findings are promising, further analysis and interpretation are necessary to inform clinical decision-making effectively. We conclude that there may be evidence supporting EMMA for non-surgical cSDH patients, but the evidence for surgical patients is questionable and requires further study. More studies are underway, and hopefully, there will be more evidence on this topic in the coming years.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it