MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410498701 · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000003458

Microsurgery Versus Embolization for Spinal Cord Arteriovenous Malformations: A Proposed Grading System

2025· article· en· W4410498701 on OpenAlexaff
Jiaxing Yu, Haohan Lu, Timo Krings, Lisong Bian, Yueshan Feng, Jingwei Li, Fan Yang, Guilin Li, Chuan He, Ming Ye, Peng Hu, Liyong Sun, Yongjie Ma, Jian Ren, Feng Ling, Tao Hong, Hongqi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMicrosurgeryMedicineEmbolizationGrading (engineering)SurgeryLesionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Comparing microsurgery and embolization for spinal cord arteriovenous malformations (SCAVMs) is challenging because of the disease's rarity and the highly heterogeneous angioarchitecture. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between microsurgery and embolization using a grading system for SCAVMs that effectively stratifies angioarchitectural complexities. METHODS: A total of 714 patients were included, with 308 undergoing microsurgery. The grading system was developed based on independent risk factors of incomplete resection, including anterior sulcal artery supply, metameric manifestations, the maximum diameter of lesion, and lesion depth. Each parameter was assigned one point, stratifying angioarchitectural complexities of SCAVMs into five grades. RESULTS: Microsurgery carried significantly higher treatment risks than embolization across all grades. For patients scoring 0 to 2 points, microsurgery achieved significantly higher complete obliteration rates than embolization. For patients scoring 3 or 4 points, the complete obliteration rates between the two methods were similar. Long-term clinical deterioration after microsurgery was significantly more frequent after embolization for patients scoring 1; for patients scoring 0, the higher long-term deterioration rate after embolization was also observed, but not statistically significant; for patients scoring 2 to 4 points, risks of long-term clinical deterioration between the two methods were comparable. At the last follow-up, the rate of poor prognosis was similar between the two methods for patients scoring 0 points. For the remaining groups, microsurgery showed a worse prognosis. CONCLUSION: Embolization should be the primary treatment option for patients with SCAVMs; however, microsurgery should be considered as an alternative for patients scoring 0 or 1 point if endovascular treatment fails to achieve complete obliteration.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207