ArticleBMJ open2022
Geometric uncertainty in intracranial aneurysm rupture status discrimination: a two-site retrospective study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intracranial aneurysm CTA images and 3D models dataset with clinical morphological and hemodynamic data.Scientific data · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAssessing the risk associated with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (IAs) is essential in clinical decision making. Several geometric risk parameters have been proposed for this purpose. However, performance of these parameters has been inconsistent. This study evaluates the performance and robustness of geometric risk parameters on two datasets and compare it to the uncertainty inherent in assessing these parameters and quantifies interparameter correlations.
methodsTwo datasets containing 244 ruptured and unruptured IA geometries from 178 patients were retrospectively analysed. IAs were stratified by anatomical region, based on the PHASES score locations. 37 geometric risk parameters representing four groups (size, neck, non-dimensional, and curvature parameters) were assessed. Analysis included standardised absolute group differences (SADs) between ruptured and unruptured IAs, ratios of SAD to median relative uncertainty (MRU) associated with the parameters, and interparameter correlation.
resultsThe ratio of SAD to MRU was lower for higher dimensional size parameters (ie, areas and volumes) than for one-dimensional size parameters. Non-dimensional size parameters performed comparatively well with regard to SAD and MRU. SAD was higher in the posterior anatomical region. Correlation of parameters was strongest within parameter (sub)groups and between size and curvature parameters, while anatomical region did not strongly affect correlation patterns.
conclusionNon-dimensional parameters and few parameters from other groups were comparatively robust, suggesting that they might generalise better to other datasets. The data on discriminative performance and interparameter correlations presented in this study may aid in developing and choosing robust geometric parameters for use in rupture risk models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.