A comparison of the efficacy of radiotherapy alone versus ratiotherapy combined with embolization in the obliteration of brain AVMs in Canadian patients: A propensity score approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little information exists about the benefit of multimodal interventional arteriovenous malformation (AVM) therapy compared to unimodal interventional therapy. This study assessed whether multimodal therapy is associated with a higher rate of AVM cure. Survival analysis with propensity score quintile adjustment compared outcome rates between therapy groups. A total of 158 patients met the study inclusion criteria. Over a mean follow-up of 30.6 months, 81 (51.3%) patients had AVM cures and 142 (90.0%) patients had AVM cure or shrinkage. Rates of cure were similar for multimodal and unimodal treatment. The propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio was 1.25 in favour of unimodal treatment (95% CI: 0.72--2.17). Likewise, rates of cure or shrinkage were similar for multimodal and unimodal treatment, with an adjusted HR 0.92; (95% CI: 0.62--1.35). There may be no difference in AVM treatment efficacy between patients treated with unimodal and multimodal therapy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".