Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Overstenting the hypogastric artery during endovascular aneurysm repair with and without prior coil embolization: A comparative analysis from the ENGAGE Registry

Background Endovascular aneurysm repair of aortoiliac or iliac aneurysms is often performed with stent graft coverage of the origin of the hypogastric artery (HA) to ensure adequate distal seal. It is considered common practice to perform adjunctive coiling of the HA to prevent a type II endoleak. Our objective was to question the necessity of pre-emptive coiling by comparing the outcomes of HA coverage with and without prior coil embolization. Methods Data from the Endurant Stent Graft Natural Selection Global Postmarket Registry (ENGAGE), which prospectively enrolled 1263 endovascular aneurysm repair patients between March 2009 and April 2011 from multiple centers worldwide, were used for this study. We identified patients in whom the Endurant stent graft (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif) covered one or both HAs and grouped them into cases in which prior HA embolization—coils or plugs—was performed (CE) and cases in which HA embolization was not performed (NE). The occurrence of covered HA-related endoleak and secondary interventions were compared between groups. Results In 197 patients, 225 HAs were covered. Ninety-one HAs were covered after coil embolization (CE group), and 134 HAs were covered without prior coil embolization (NE group). Both groups were similar at baseline and had comparable length of follow-up to last image (665.2 ± 321.7 days for CE patients; 641.6 ± 327.6 days for NE patients; P =.464). Importantly, both groups showed equivalent iliac morphology concerning common iliac artery proximal, mid, and distal dimensions and tortuosity, making them suitable for comparative analysis. During follow-up, HA-related endoleaks were sparse and occurred equally often in both groups (CE 5.5% vs NE 3.0%; P =.346). Secondary intervention to resolve an HA-related endoleak was performed twice in the CE group and three times in the NE group. Late non-HA-related endoleaks occurred more often in the CE group compared with the NE group, (25.0% vs 15.0%; P =.080). Secondary interventions for other reasons than HA-related endoleaks occurred in 7.5% of NE cases and 15.4% of CE cases (P =.057), mostly for occlusions in the ipsilateral iliac limb. During follow-up, 19 NE patients and 9 CE patients died, which is not significantly different (P =.225), and no deaths were related directly or indirectly to HA coverage. Also, no reports of gluteal necrosis and bowel ischemia were made. Conclusions This study shows that HA coverage with the Endurant endograft without prior coil embolization does not increase the incidence of endoleak or related secondary interventions. These findings together with the already available evidence suggest that omission of coil embolization may be a more resource-effective strategy whenever HA coverage is required

Midterm Results After Abandoning Routine Preemptive Coil Embolization of the Internal Iliac Artery During Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Purpose: To analyze the results of endovascular repair of common iliac artery (CIA) aneurysms without preemptive coil embolization of the internal iliac artery (IIA). Materials and Methods: Between January 2010 and July 2016, 79 patients (mean age 74.3±8.4 years; 76 men) underwent endovascular repair extending into the external iliac artery owing to a CIA aneurysm. The procedure was performed for a ruptured aneurysm in 22 (28%) patients. Eighty-one IIAs were intentionally covered. The median CIA diameter was 37 mm (range 20–90). The primary outcomes were the occurrence of type II endoleaks and the incidence of buttock claudication. Results: Five (6%) patients died within 30 days (4 with ruptured aneurysms and 1 elective case). Two type II endoleaks originating from a covered IIA were recorded; one required an endovascular intervention because of aneurysm growth. The other patient died of a rupture based on an additional type III endoleak. Mean follow-up was 37.6±26.3 months. Nineteen (26%) patients required a secondary intervention. Buttock claudication was reported in 21 (28%) of 74 patients and persisted after 1 year in 7. No severe ischemic complications as a result of IIA coverage were recorded, and no revascularization was required during follow-up. Conclusion: Treatment of CIA aneurysms by overstenting the IIA without preemptive coil embolization is safe and has a low risk of type II endoleak and aneurysm growth. Persisting buttock claudication is rare

A 15-Year Single-Center Experience of Endovascular Repair for Elective and Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

\u3cp\u3ePurpose: To evaluate the differences in technical outcomes and secondary interventions between elective endovascular aneurysm repair (el-EVAR) procedures and those for ruptured aneurysms (r-EVAR). Methods: Of the 906 patients treated with primary EVAR from September 1998 until July 2012, 43 cases were excluded owing to the use of first-generation stent-grafts. Among the remaining 863 patients, 773 (89.6%) patients (mean age 72 years; 697 men) with asymptomatic or symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) were assigned to the el-EVAR group; 90 (10.4%) patients (mean age 73 years; 73 men) were assigned to the r-EVAR group based on blood outside the aortic wall on preoperative imaging. The primary study outcome was technical success; secondary endpoints, including freedom from secondary interventions and late survival, were examined with Kaplan-Meier analyses. Results: At baseline, r-EVAR patients had larger aneurysms on average (p<0.001) compared to el-EVAR patients. Technical success was comparable (p=0.052), but there were more type Ia endoleaks at completion angiography in the r-EVAR group (p=0.038). As anticipated, more patients died in the first month in the r-EVAR group (18.9% vs 2.2% el-EVAR, p<0.001). At 5 years, there was an overall survival of 65.1% for the el-EVAR patients vs 48.1% in the r-EVAR group (p<0.001). The freedom from AAA-related mortality was 95.7% for el- EVAR and 71.0% for r-EVAR (p<0.001). Five-year freedom from type I/III endoleaks was significantly lower in the r-EVAR group (78.7% vs 90.0%, p=0.003). Five-year freedom from secondary intervention estimates were not significantly different (el-EVAR 84.2% vs r-EVAR 78.2%, p=0.064). Conclusion: Within our cohort of primary EVAR patients, r-EVAR cases showed comparable stent-graft-related technical outcome. Although there was a higher incidence of type Ia endoleaks on completion angiography in the r-EVAR group, the overall secondary intervention rate was comparable to el-EVAR.\u3c/p\u3