MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409789287 · doi:10.3171/2024.12.peds24211

Robotic radiosurgery for the treatment of pediatric arteriovenous malformations

2025· article· en· W4409789287 on OpenAlexaff
Lily H. Kim, Teeradon Treechairusame, Jennifer S. Chiang, Zachary White, Scott A. Jackson, Jennifer L. Quon, Geoffrey Appelboom, Steven D. Chang, Scott G. Soltys, Raphael Guzman, Samuel Cheshier, Robert Dodd, Gerald A. Grant, Michael S. B. Edwards, Iris C. Gibbs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosurgeryMedicineArteriovenous malformationEmbolizationIntracranial Arteriovenous MalformationsUnivariate analysisRetrospective cohort studyProportional hazards modelRadiation therapyMicrosurgeryRadiologyNuclear medicineSurgeryMultivariate analysisAngiographyCerebral angiographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric intracranial arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) have a greater cumulative lifetime risk of rupture than those in adults. Although obliteration after radiation occurs in a dose-dependent manner, increasing radiation doses must be balanced against the risk of adverse radiation effects (AREs). The authors aimed to assess the efficacy of robotic radiosurgery for pediatric AVMs. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of pediatric patients with AVMs at a single institution who underwent robotic radiosurgery between 2005 and 2021 with one of 3 radiosurgery dosing schedules: 1) single-stage unfractionated (SSU), 2) single-stage fractionated (SSF), and 3) volumetrically multistaged (VMS) treatment. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to identify predictors of AREs and obliteration. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with 100 intracranial AVMs were identified. Median (range) follow-up time was 4.5 (1.8-15.2) years. Forty-four (46.3%) presented with ruptured AVMs. The mean ± SD AVM volume was 10.0 ± 11.88 cm3. A plurality of AVMs were Spetzler-Martin grade III (36.2%). The overall rate of total obliteration was 52.6% (78.8% of SSU-treated, 24.2% of SSF-treated, 10% of VMS-treated patients) with a median (range) obliteration time of 3.25 (2.8-4.1) years. Partial obliteration was achieved in 23.2% of patients. In the univariate analysis, the higher obliteration rate was associated with small volume (HR 0.876, 95% CI 0.812-0.945) (p = 0.001), no prior embolization (HR 0.472, 95% CI 0.254-0.876) (p = 0.017), lower Spetzler-Martin grade (HR 0.437, 95% CI 0.320-0.597) (p ≤ 0.001), and higher single-fraction equivalent dose (HR 1.160, 95% CI 1.020-1.198) (p = 0.015). Pretreatment hemorrhage was found in 51 patients (59.6% of SSU-treated, 45.5% of SSF-treated, and 50% of VMS-treated patients). Thirteen patients experienced posttreatment hemorrhage (3.8% of SSU-treated, 12% of SSF-treated, and 60% of VMS-treated patients). AREs were found afterward in 31.6% of patients. The correlations of male sex (HR 0.447, 95% CI 0.199-1.004) (p = 0.051) and volume of brain tissue that received a single-fraction equivalent dose of 12 Gy or greater (HR 1.020, 95% CI 1.000-1.041) (p = 0.053) with AREs did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: SSU treatment was effective for treating smaller AVMs with an obliteration rate of 79%. Although SSF treatment was less effective in achieving total obliteration (24%), this approach significantly reduced the posttreatment hemorrhage rate by nearly 75% (46% of patients had pretreatment hemorrhage vs 12% with posttreatment hemorrhage). Unfortunately, only 10% of AVMs in the VMS cohort were obliterated and posttreatment hemorrhage rates were not reduced.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207