Abstract 017: Determinants of Adequate Aneurysm Occlusion After WEB Device Deployment: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device is an effective treatment for wide‐neck aneurysms (WNA). This study aims to identify and compare anatomical and procedural factors that predicts the aneurysm occlusion, both adequate and inadequate after WEB device treatment. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, including studies up to October 25, 2024. Data on angiographic outcomes of WEB occlusion were extracted and analyzed using R version 4.4.2 Results Nine studies (790 patients) were included. Female patients were 1.64 times more likely to achieve adequate occlusion than males (OR: 1.64, 95% CI: [1.06, 2.52], p = 0.026). Regular‐shaped aneurysms had a 2.44‐fold higher likelihood of adequate occlusion compared to irregular ones (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: [0.23, 0.74]). Aneurysm neck size was significantly smaller in the adequate occlusion group (3.9 mm vs. 4.4 mm, MD: ‐0.48 mm, 95% CI: [‐0.78, ‐0.18], p = 0.002). Maximum aneurysm diameter was also smaller in the adequate occlusion group (5.7 mm vs. 6.8 mm, MD: ‐1.13 mm, 95% CI: [‐1.69, ‐0.57], p < 0.001). Aneurysm height was also significantly lower than the inadequate occlusion group (5.4 mm vs. 6.3 mm, MD: ‐0.92 mm, 95% CI: [‐1.55, ‐0.29], p = 0.004). Conclusion Smaller aneurysm dimensions, regular shape, and female gender were associated with higher adequate occlusion rates after WEB treatment. These findings may guide patient selection strategies for optimizing aneurysm occlusion. Further high‐quality studies are needed to confirm these associations. image image
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".