ArticleNeurosurgery2026
Risk Models for Adverse Events in Microsurgery for Intracranial Unruptured Aneurysms.
Article in Neurosurgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPreventive treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) requires assessment of treatment risks vs expected benefit. Although established scores exist to estimate rupture and growth risk, currently, no externally validated tools exist to estimate the risks of microsurgical treatment of UIAs. Clinical prediction models based on machine learning enable generation of personalized risk estimates for each individual patient based on their specific patient and aneurysm characteristics.
methodsUsing data from 20 international centers from the prediction of adverse events after microsurgery for intracranial unruptured aneurysms study on patients treated microsurgically for UIAs, we developed and externally validated clinical prediction models for 3 outcomes measured at hospital discharge: poor neurological outcome (modified Rankin Score ≥3), new sensorimotor neurological deficits, and all-cause adverse events (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥1).
resultsA total of 3705 patients were included. Data from 13 centers (2881, 78%) were used for model development. Fully trained models were evaluated on 824 patients (22%) from 7 additional centers. Average age was 56 ± 12 years, and 1049 (28%) were male. At discharge, poor neurological outcome was seen in 514 patients (14%). New sensorimotor deficits were observed in 534 patients (14%), and 894 patients (24%) experienced adverse events until discharge. At external validation, prediction of poor neurological outcome was achieved with good calibration and an area under the curve (AUC) = 0.70 (95% CI: 0.63-0.75). Similarly, new neurological deficits were predicted with good calibration and with an AUC = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.63-0.74). Prediction of all-cause adverse events only achieved an AUC = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.55-0.64) with fair calibration. The prediction model was integrated into a web application accessible at https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/PRAEMIUM/ .
conclusionThe developed models for prediction of poor neurological outcome and new sensorimotor neurological deficits at discharge exhibit good calibration and fair discrimination based on a multinational external validation, indicating that the predicted probabilities correspond well to real-world risks and may thus be clinically useful in more objectively estimating the risk of microsurgical treatment.
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.