The association between aortic and intracranial aneurysms: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aneurysms at different arterial sites share similar pathophysiologic and biomechanical properties. Theoretically, an association between intracranial aneurysms and aortic aneurysms could exist as well, which might be important for screening purposes. This systematic review aims to evaluate the potential association between intracranial and aortic aneurysms. A systematic search was performed to identify studies that investigated the occurrence of intracranial aneurysms in patients with aortic aneurysms (sub-question A) or vice versa (sub-question B). Methodological quality was assessed by using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In total, 12 studies were included in this systematic review. For sub-question A, an occurrence rate of 5% to 12% was identified for aortic aneurysms in patients with intracranial aneurysms. An occurrence rate of 5% to 22% for intracranial aneurysms was found in patients with an aortic aneurysm (sub-question B). This systematic review suggests a potential association between intracranial and aortic aneurysms, as higher occurrences compared with the general population or controls were found. Unfortunately, very little research has been performed about the subject and because of this, a definite conclusion could not be made. Screening for aortic aneurysms in patients with intracranial aneurysms might be valuable for timely diagnosis, follow-up, treatment, and potentially be cost-effective. Screening vice versa is unclear; important factors that remain unclear include the costs and the uncertain survival benefit of detecting intracranial aneurysms in patients with an aortic aneurysm. To make a more reliable statement about this, more high-quality research must follow.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".