Middle meningeal artery embolization for subdural hematoma: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Middle meningeal artery embolization is an emerging neuroendovascular therapy for chronic subdural hematoma. Recently, a number of randomized control trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of middle meningeal artery embolization to reduce the recurrence or progression of chronic subdural hematoma. Methods A systematic review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The authors will systematically search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine) for randomized control trials evaluating middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematoma. A meta-analysis will be undertaken to compare patients undergoing middle meningeal artery embolization and standard care compared to standard care alone; primary effectiveness endpoints will be symptomatic recurrence, radiographic re-accumulation, or reoperation; secondary safety endpoints will be new disabling stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 30 days. Discussion This proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will synthesize and appraise available data regarding middle meningeal artery embolization, a novel neurointerventional therapy. Findings will help clinicians, patients, administrators, policy makers to determine the role of this new treatment and its potential benefits. Systematic review registration PROSPERO #CRD42024512049
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.058 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".