Comparison of Repeat Versus Initial Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Intracranial Arteriovenous Malformations: A Retrospective Multicenter Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies comparing neurological and radiographic outcomes of repeat to initial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) intracranial arteriovenous malformations are scarce. Our aim was to perform a retrospective matched comparison of patients initially treated with SRS with those undergoing a second radiosurgical procedure. METHODS: We collected data from arteriovenous malformations managed in 21 centers that underwent initial and repeated radiosurgery from 1987 to 2022. Based on arteriovenous malformations volume, margin dose, deep venous drainage, deep, and critical location, we matched 1:1 patients who underwent an initial SRS for treatment-naive arteriovenous malformations and a group with repeated SRS treatment. RESULTS: After the selection process, our sample consisted of 328 patients in each group. Obliteration in the initial SRs group was 35.8% at 3 and 56.7% at 5 years post-SRS, while the repeat SRS group showed obliteration rates of 33.9% at 3 years and 58.6% at 5 years, without statistically significant differences (P = .75 and P = .88, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for obliteration rates (hazard ratio = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .5), overall radiation-induced changes (RIC) (OR = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.75-1.6; P = .6), symptomatic RIC (OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.4-1.5; P = .4), and post-SRS hemorrhage (OR = 0.68; 95% CI; P = .3). CONCLUSION: In matched cohort analysis, a second SRS provides comparable outcomes in obliteration and RIC compared with the initial SRS. Dose reduction on repeat SRS may not be warranted.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".