MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406395049 · doi:10.1161/svin.04.suppl_1.132

Abstract 132: Prediction of Long‐term Treatment Failure of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated With Woven EndoBridge Device: A Multi‐center Study

2024· article· en· W4406395049 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammed Amir Essibayi, Mohamed Sobhi Jabal, Adam A. Dmytriw, David Altschul

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCenter (category theory)Term (time)MedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow disruption devices like the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) is associated with variable occlusion success. Identifying determinants of long‐term treatment failure is vital for optimizing patient selection. This study aimed to determine morphological and clinical factors associated with treatment failure following WEB deployment for cerebral aneurysms. Methods This retrospective multicenter study analyzed intracranial aneurysm cases treated with WEB devices between 2011‐2022. Treatment failure, the primary outcome, was defined as persistent incomplete occlusion (Raymond‐Roy Occlusion Classification [RROC] grades 2/3) on final angiographic follow‐up, excluding cases with stable RROC grade 1 or worsening RROC grades. Follow‐up was categorized as short/midterm (<24 months) and long‐term (≥24 months). Univariate analyses assessed differences in baseline factors between failure and success groups. Machine learning models, including a CatBoost classifier, were developed to predict long‐term treatment failure and optimized using SHAP values. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) for factors associated with treatment failure in both follow‐up cohorts. Results Of the 813 cases, 206 (25.3%) had long‐term follow‐up (≥24 months). Treatment failure occurred in 210 (26%) cases based on persistent incomplete occlusion at final follow‐up. The CatBoost model achieved an AUC of 0.67 for predicting treatment failure, with the most influential predictors being aneurysm height, anterior communicating artery aneurysms, aneurysm‐neck‐diameter, age, worse pretreatment‐modified Rankin Scale scores, hemorrhagic complications, and WEB type DL. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that antiplatelet therapy (OR 1.65, 95% CI [0.39, 6.96]; p=0.498) and compaction (minor/major) (OR 1.81, 95% CI [0.58, 5.57]; p=0.304) were not significantly associated with treatment failure at ≥ 24 months. Immediate flow stagnation was also not significant (OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.14, 1.38]; p=0.159). Aneurysm width (OR 1.31, 95% CI [0.91, 1.88]; p=0.144) and neck diameter (OR 1.24, 95% CI [0.83, 1.86]; p=0.286) did not show significant associations with treatment failure. Posterior circulation aneurysms were protective against failure at <24 months (OR 0.45, 95% CI [0.24, 0.81]; p=0.008). Older age was significantly associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure at ≥24 months (OR 0.93, 95% CI [0.88, 0.98]; p=0.005). Ruptured aneurysms and smoking were not significant predictors of treatment failure. Conclusion This study demonstrates that aneurysm morphology and patient characteristics influence long‐term outcomes with the WEB device. The machine learning model offers moderate predictive accuracy for treatment failure, while logistic regression identified key factors influencing persistent incomplete occlusion, particularly aneurysm location and patient age. These findings could inform patient selection and treatment strategies, although further external validation is required to confirm their clinical implications.

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)0.003
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207