ArticleJAMA network open2025
Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture Risk.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Achievement and Future Prospectives from Translational Research Targeting Intracranial Aneurysm.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence for Cerebral Aneurysm Management: Integrating Imaging, Hemodynamics, and Clinical Decision Support.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Chapter 1: The Natural History of Intracranial Aneurysms.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Completely thrombosed middle cerebral artery aneurysm mimicking cavernous malformation: illustrative case report with operative video and review of the literature.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in neurovascular surgery: advancing diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Psychological resilience and fear of disease progression among hospitalized patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms scheduled for endovascular intervention: implications for nursing practice.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) affect 3.2% of the general population, and approximately 85% of subarachnoid hemorrhages result from their rupture. Despite their classification as low risk by prediction tools such as PHASES (population, hypertension, age, size of aneurysm, earlier subarachnoid hemorrhage from another aneurysm, and site of aneurysm) and the Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm Study (UCAS), UIAs less than 10 mm are susceptible to rupture. Objective: To develop and externally validate a machine-learning model (MLM) predicting rupture risk of UIAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective multicenter prognostic study analyzed UIAs from 4 institutions across 3 continents from January 2003 to November 2022. Each UIA was characterized by 29 clinical and 18 morphological variables. For model development, patients with UIAs were drawn from a large institutional cohort. Statistical analysis was performed from April 2024 to March 2025. Exposure: An MLM based on the Light Gradient Boosting Machine algorithm was trained, and performance was assessed for validation externally. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was aneurysm rupture within 2 years after risk evaluation. Model performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) with 95% CIs. Results: Drawing from 11 579 UIAs from multiple institutions of 8846 patients, there were 2750 patients with 3312 UIAs in the development cohort (median [IQR] age, 65.3 [54.9-73.6] years; 1856 females [67.5%]) and 1153 patients with 1501 UIAs in the external cohort (median [IQR] age, 63.6 [53.9-70.9] years; 828 females [71.8%]), for whom the MLM demonstrated a robust performance in risk estimation. In the development cohort, 71 UIAs (2.1%) ruptured during 8.5 years' median follow-up (IQR, 5.1-11.6 years), and in the external cohort, 48 UIAs (3.2%) ruptured during a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.4 (3.7-8.7) years. With a threshold of 0.52 for the MLM, performance in the development cohort for sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.86); specificity, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.83); PPV, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.07-0.11); NPV, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00); PLR, 4.23 (95% CI, 3.66-4.89); NLR, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.18-0.42); and AUROC, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92) and in the external cohort, sensitivity was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95); specificity, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67-0.72); PPV, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.07-0.12); NPV, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00); PLR, 2.94 (95% CI, 2.60-3.33); NLR, 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.34); and AUROC, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94). The MLM performed consistently in UIAs less than 10 mm (AUROC, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]), suggesting potential complementary value to PHASES and the UCAS. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, the MLM consistently identified features of UIAs as significantly associated with rupture across different cohorts. These results support the MLM's potential to assist physicians and patients in UIA treatment decisions.
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.