MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409920846 · doi:10.1016/j.bas.2025.104262

Multidimensional outcome after endovascular or microsurgical occlusion of ruptured intracranial aneurysms – Comparative analysis of a prospective Swiss multicenter study

2025· article· en· W4409920846 on OpenAlex
Vincens Kälin, Martin N. Stienen, Olivia Zindel-Geisseler, Noemi Dannecker, Yannick Rothacher, Ladina Schlosser, Julia Velz, Martina Sebök, Noëmi Eggenberger, Adrien May, Philippe Bijlenga, Ursula Guerra-Lopez, Rodolfo Maduri, Daniele Starnoni, Valérie Beaud, Alessio Chiappini, Thomas Robert, Sara Bonasia, Stefania Rossi, Johannes Goldberg, Christian Fung, David Bervini, Klemens Gutbrod, Nicolai Maldaner, Severin Früh, Marc Schwind, Anna-Maria Zeitlberger, Isabel C. Hostettler, Oliver Bozinov, Peter Brugger, Menno R. Germans, Luca Regli

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Spine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIdorsia PharmaceuticalsUniversitätsspital Zürich
KeywordsMedicineOcclusionOutcome (game theory)Multicenter studyEndovascular treatmentAneurysmSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Despite advances in cerebral aneurysm treatment, information on detailed outcomes remains limited. We compared complications and multidimensional outcomes in alert aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) patients (GCS ≥13) who received clipping or coiling after individualized decisions were made through multidisciplinary board discussions. Research question: Are there significant differences in multidimensional outcomes between clipping and coiling treatments for alert aSAH patients when treatment selection is individualized? Material and methods: Within the prospective MoCA-DCI study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03032471), patients with a GCS of 13-15 72h post-aSAH in six neurovascular centers underwent neuropsychological (Montreal Cognitive Assessment; MoCA), neurological (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; NIHSS), headache (visual analog scale; VAS), disability (modified Rankin Scale; mRS) and health-related quality of life (EuroQol Five Dimensions; EQ5D) assessments within 72h, 14 days and three months after aSAH. We compared these multidimensional outcomes and complications for clipped and coiled patients. Results: Of 126 patients (mean age 53.8 years; 63.9 % female), 84 were coiled and 42 clipped. MoCA scores for clipped vs coiled patients were 23(7) vs 23(8; p = 0.250), 25(8) vs 28(5; p = 0.346), and 27(4) vs 28(5; p = 0.481). Normal cognition (MoCA ≥26) was achieved within 72h by 28.6 % of coiled and 40.5 % of clipped patients (p = 0.179). Complication rates were similar, though surgical patients had higher intraprocedural rupture rates (p = 0.027). Clipped patients reported higher headaches at three months (p = 0.013), while NIHSS, mRS and EQ5D showed no differences. Discussion and conclusion: After interdisciplinary selection of the most appropriate treatment, similar favorable outcomes can be achieved in alert aSAH patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.319
Teacher spread0.302 · 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