ArticleSurgical neurology international2025
Enhancing precision in aneurysm volume measurement: A comparative study of techniques including an artificial intelligence-based method for endovascular coiling.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sources of Variability in Intracranial Aneurysm Model Reconstruction and Evaluation: A Systematic Investigation.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2026Article
- Aneurysm Volumetry: The Unmet Need for Validation.Neurointervention · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Durable occlusion after endovascular coiling can be compromised by recanalization, underscoring the need for accurate cerebral aneurysm assessment. Precise volume measurement not only informs treatment decisions and detects subtle aneurysm growth but also refines calculations of packing density, historically linked to occlusion success. This study compares three volume-measurement approaches-traditional two-dimensional (2D) estimation, a semi-automated three-dimensional (3D) technique, and an artificial intelligence (AI)-based 3D method. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, 24 aneurysms were assessed using 3D rotational angiography. Manual segmentation by three specialists using ITK-SNAP or mimics served as the reference standard. These results were compared with volumes from a semi-automated 3D platform (Philips Advanced Visualization Workspace), an AI-based tool (RapidAI for Aneurysm), and traditional 2D estimations. Agreement with the reference standard was quantified through Passing-Bablok regression slopes and mean biases. Results: Passing-Bablok slopes for the 2D, Philips, and RapidAI methods were 0.83, 0.87, and 0.94, respectively, while mean biases were -24.7 mm Conclusion: All methods underestimated aneurysm volumes compared to the reference standard, suggesting that inaccurate volume measurements may mask early aneurysm growth. Among the techniques assessed, the AI-based approach provided the closest agreement with the reference, indicating that improved volumetric methods-particularly AI-driven ones-can enhance early detection of aneurysm expansion, guide treatment decisions, and help establish more reliable follow-up strategies for both treated and conservatively managed aneurysms.
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.