MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403836756 · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000003243

Comparative Outcomes of Unilateral vs Bilateral Revascularization in Moyamoya Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

2024· article· en· W4403836756 on OpenAlexaff
Basel Musmar, Joanna M. Roy, Hammam Abdalrazeq, Anand Kaul, Elias Atallah, Kareem El Naamani, Ching‐Jen Chen, Roland Jabre, Hassan Saad, Jonathan A Grossberg, Adam A. Dmytriw, Aman B. Patel, MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh, Christopher S. Ogilvy, Ajith J. Thomas, André Monteiro, Adnan Siddiqui, Gustavo M Cortez, Ricardó A. Hanel, Guilherme Porto, Alejandro M Spiotta, Anthony Piscopo, David Hasan, Mohammad Ghorbani, Joshua Weinberg, Shahid M. Nimjee, Kimon Bekelis, Mohamed M. Salem, Jan‐Karl Burkhardt, Akli Zetchi, Charles Matouk, Brian M. Howard, Rosalind Lai, Rose Du, Rawad Abbas, Georgios S. Sioutas, Abdelaziz Amllay, Alfredo Múñoz, Nabeel Herial, Stavropoula I. Tjoumakaris, M. Reid Gooch, Robert H. Rosenwasser, Pascal Jabbour

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMoyamoya disease diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRevascularizationModified Rankin ScaleMoyamoya diseasePerioperativePropensity score matchingSurgeryInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyOdds ratioStroke (engine)CardiologyIschemiaIschemic strokeMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Moyamoya disease (MMD) is characterized by progressive steno-occlusion of the internal carotid arteries, leading to compensatory collateral vessel formation. The optimal surgical approach for MMD remains debated, with bilateral revascularization potentially offering more comprehensive protection but involving more extensive surgery compared to unilateral revascularization. This study aims to compare bilateral revascularization and unilateral revascularization short-term safety profile in the treatment of MMD. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with MMD who underwent surgical revascularization at 13 academic institutions. Patients were categorized into unilateral and bilateral revascularization groups. Data collected included demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata (V.17.0; StataCorp). RESULTS: A total of 497 patients were included, including 90 who had bilateral revascularization and 407 who had unilateral revascularization. Bilateral revascularization was associated with more perioperative asymptomatic strokes (10% vs 2.4%; odds ratio [OR] 4.41, 95% CI 1.73 to 11.19, P = .002) and higher rates of excellent functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale 0-1) at discharge (92.2% vs 79.1%; OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.39 to 7, P = .006). After propensity score matching, 57 matched pairs were analyzed. There was a higher rate, though not statistically significant difference, of perioperative stroke in the bilateral revascularization group (15.7% vs 8.7%; OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.61 to 6.22, P = .26). No significant differences were noted in modified Rankin scale 0 to 1 and 0 to 2 scores at discharge, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale at discharge, intraoperative complications, or length of hospital stay. The follow-up stroke rates were also not significantly different (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.39, P = .15). CONCLUSION: This study found no significant differences between bilateral and unilateral revascularization in MMD. Patients who had bilateral revascularization had higher tendency of perioperative stroke, though not statistically significant. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these results.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicMoyamoya disease diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207