MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411924749 · doi:10.1007/s10143-025-03684-x

Risk factors for cerebral vasospasm following arteriovenous malformation-related hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4411924749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maurycy Rakowski, Nedret Koç, Samuel D. Pettersson, Piotr Zieliński

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical Review · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArteriovenous malformationNeurosurgeryVasospasmMeta-analysisSubarachnoid hemorrhageCerebral vasospasmRadiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral vasospasm (CVS) is a severe complication associated with significant morbidity and in-hospital mortality. While well characterized in aSAH, its occurrence following AVM-related hemorrhage remains less understood. To address this gap, a meta-analysis adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted, with two independent authors searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to July 2024, seeking studies on CVS risk factors following AVM-related hemorrhage. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Dichotomous variables were pooled into an overriding odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), while continuous variables were analyzed using the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI, both using a random-effects model. Out of 2360 screened articles, 4 studies met the inclusion criteria, totaling 7483 AVM-related hemorrhage patients, 958 of whom developed CVS. All studies were rated high quality, according to NOS. A total of 10 extractable demographic, behavioral, clinical, and radiographic variables reported in the literature were assessed. The following CVS risk factors were statistically significant: younger age (MD = -4.99; 95% CI [-9.40 to -0.57]; p = 0.03), female sex (OR = 1.72; 95% CI [1.50-1.98]; p < 0.00001), and intraventricular hemorrhage (OR = 1.24; 95% CI [1.04-1.48]; p = 0.02). Subarachnoid hemorrhage was close to significance (OR = 1.17; 95% CI [1.00-1.36]; p = 0.05). This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to identify risk factors for CVS in the context of AVM-related hemorrhage. The presented findings may aid clinicians in recognizing high-risk individuals. Further research is warranted to develop a reliable risk scoring system that can predict AVM-associated CVS in clinical settings and to further explore the differences between CVS following aSAH and AVM-related hemorrhage.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.013
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueNeurosurgical ReviewSame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207