Outcome Analysis and Early Concept Development to Identify the Most Suitable Woven EndoBridge Size Based on Various Shapes of Cerebral Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The selection of the appropriate Woven EndoBridge (WEB) size is the most critical aspect of the decision-making process in aneurysm WEB embolization. However, there are currently no precise criteria for measuring WEB size that correspond to each aneurysm. This study presents a process that includes a WEB index for determining the exact volume based on various aneurysm shape types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty consecutive aneurysms treated with WEB device were included. The volume measurements of the aneurysms, based on their column configurations, were compared with WEB volume to assess the accuracy of the fit within each aneurysm. After categorizing the aneurysms into symmetric and asymmetric shapes, they were further classified into 5 types according to their configurations. We estimated outcomes, including any events or recurrences, and calculated WEB index (WEB volume/aneurysm volume) along with the median and interquartile range to evaluate differences based on shape type. A statistical analysis was conducted to identify associations between various variables and stenting and/or recurrence. RESULTS: Symmetric aneurysms (n=39, 65%) were more prevalent than asymmetric aneurysms (n=21, 35%). Among the 5 shape types, the column shape was the most common (n=32, 53%), followed by submarine (n=9, 15%), sphere (n=7, 12%), boots (n=6, 10%), and mitten (n=6, 10%) shapes. The median WEB index was 0.96. Asymmetric aneurysm shapes were associated with stent-assisted procedures (oversizing) (P=0.029) and the presence of sac remnants or recurrence (undersizing) (P=0.033). There were no adverse events reported, except for 1 non-procedure-related death at 7 months and 2 retreatments among 3 recurred aneurysms during a mean magnetic resonance angiography follow-up of 8 months (range, 3-21 months) and a mean clinical follow-up of 12 months (range, 3-30 months). CONCLUSION: Outcome of WEB embolization depended on aneurysm configuration (shape types) and the measurement of aneurysm volume (WEB index).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".