MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402646556 · doi:10.3390/brainsci14090934

Clinical and Anatomical Characteristics of Perforator Aneurysms of the Posterior Cerebral Artery: A Single-Center Experience

2024· article· en· W4402646556 on OpenAlexaff
Anahita Malvea, Shigeta Miyake, Ronit Agid, Hugo Andrade-Barazarte, Richard Farb, Timo Krings, Pascal J. Mosimann, Patrick Joseph Nicholson, Ivan Radovanovic, Karel G. terBrugge, Robert A. Willinsky, Joanna D. Schaafsma, Eef J. Hendriks

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAneurysmClipping (morphology)Presentation (obstetrics)Endovascular coilingSurgerySingle CenterDemographicsRadiologyEndovascular treatmentRetrospective cohort studyCohortAnterior cerebral arteryMiddle cerebral arteryInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Posterior cerebral artery (PCA) aneurysms represent up to 1% of all cerebral aneurysms. P1-P2 perforator aneurysms are thought to be even less prevalent and often require complex treatment strategies due to their anatomical and morphological characteristics, with risk of a perforator infarct. We studied the treatment of P1-P2 perforator aneurysms in a single-center cohort from a high-volume tertiary center, reporting clinical and anatomical characteristics, treatment strategies, and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult patients with a P1-P2 perforator aneurysm who presented at our institution between January 2000 and January 2023 was performed. The patients were analyzed for demographics, clinical presentation, imaging findings, treatment techniques, outcomes, and complications. Subgroup analyses between ruptured versus non-ruptured cases were included. RESULTS: Out of 2733 patients with a cerebral aneurysm, 14 patients (0.5%) presented with a P1-P2 perforator aneurysm. All six patients with a ruptured aneurysm were treated by endovascular coiling, of whom one patient (16.7%) required surgical clipping of a recurrence. One out of eight (12.5%) patients with unruptured aneurysms was treated by surgical clipping. P1-P2 perforator aneurysms predominantly affected middle-aged individuals (median 59.5 years), with 10/14 (71.4%) being female. Endovascular coiling was the primary treatment modality overall, yielding favorable technical outcomes, however, it was complicated by a perforator infarct in two patients (33.3%) without new permanent morbidity or mortality secondary to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: P1-P2 perforator aneurysms are a rare subtype of intracranial aneurysm. Endovascular coiling could present an effective treatment modality; however, care should be taken for ischemic complications in the dependent perforator territory. Larger studies are required to provide more insights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207