Comparison between ruptured anterior choroidal artery aneurysms and ruptured intracranial aneurysms in other locations in relation to aneurysm dimensions at rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: It was noticed that anterior choroidal artery (AChoA) aneurysms appear to rupture at relatively smaller sizes compared with aneurysms in other intracranial locations, based on anecdotal clinical experience. We therefore aimed to compare ruptured AChoA aneurysms with other ruptured aneurysms in other intracranial locations, pertaining to aneurysm dimensions. This may help in finding out if the rupture risk stratification, based on the amalgamation of aneurysms of multiple locations in one group, precisely estimates aneurysm rupture risk. METHODS: 255 ruptured intracranial aneurysms, which underwent assessment with catheter angiography with 3D reconstruction, in a single tertiary center between January 2000 and December 2023, were included. 6 aneurysm dimensions were compared. RESULTS: Statistically significant larger aneurysm maximum diameter, height, width and size ratio (SR) of the ruptured posterior communicating artery (PCOMM) aneurysms were identified when compared with ruptured AChoA aneurysms. No statistically significant difference in the aneurysm maximum diameter, height and width between the ruptured AChoA and ruptured anterior cerebral artery (ACA), anterior communicating artery (Acom), pericallosal artery and basilar tip aneurysms was found. AChoA aneurysms appear to rupture at a relatively small size, which is comparable to other aneurysm locations that are often grouped into different categories in rupture risk stratification. CONCLUSION: More detailed location-specific rupture risk estimation may be needed. The combination of multiple intracranial aneurysm locations into a single category for risk stratification may not reflect the true aneurysm size at rupture for some aneurysms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".