Citations

Abstract Background We aimed to describe the real-world durability of clinical and endoscopic outcomes of upadacitinib (UPA) in ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods We retrospectively analyzed an ongoing multi-center cohort of UC patients(pts) in the United States who were started on UPA for active disease. Primary outcome was clinical remission at 1yr assessed by partial Mayo score(pMS)(resolution of all UC related symptoms and physician global assessment). Secondary outcomes assessed at various timepoints, including after re-escalation, included clinical response(>50%reduction in symptoms utilizing the pMS), endoscopic response (Mayo endoscopic score≤1or absence of erosions/ulcerations) and histological remission(defined as normal or chronic inactive). Durable secondary outcomes achieved at both 6months and at 1yr and beyond were also assessed. Descriptive statistics were performed. Adverse events(AEs) investigated included cardiovascular events and herpes zoster (HZ). Results 416pts were included(Table 1) with median values for age at initiation of36.00yrs(range27-48), disease duration7.00yrs(range3-14)and follow-up 993days(IQR,672-1103), with206(49.52%)with follow-up at 1yr or beyond. Of these, 66.1%had extensive colitis. Induction duration was8wks in 86.5%and16wks in 4.8 %(20/416). Most received an induction dose of45mg(97.1%)and maintenance dose of30mg(85.8%). Among the evaluable population at1yr and beyond, 62.5%(45/80)were in clinical remission, 75.9%(22/29)in endoscopic response with58.6%(17/29) in remission and66.6%(20/30)in histological remission. At 6months, clinical remission was51.6%(42/93), endoscopic response was 75%(24/32) of which43.75%(14/32)were in remission and histologic remission was seen in 40.8%(20/49).Durable secondary outcomes of clinical remission were seen in 71.4%(30/42), endoscopic improvement in 45.8%(11/24), and histologic remission in35%(7/20). Re-escalation to 45mg occurred in 35pts, of which48.6%(17/35)were re-escalated due to incomplete induction clinical response with all achieving response(11 in remission). The rest(18/35)were re-escalated for clinical relapse after initial remission where72.2%(13/18)were able to recapture remission. After re-escalation,54.3%(19/35)continued on 45mg daily. AEs were reported in12.7%with HZ in 7pts(2.1%). One pt aged53yrs had an episode of TIA after 1yr on UPA at 15mg, without pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors and UPA use is ongoing at the same dose. There were no reported episodes of worsening of pre-existing cardiovascular disease or DVT/PE. Conclusion UPA is durably effective and safe in a real-world clinical setting with re-escalation to 45mg capturing response in a majority of the pts. Ongoing recruitment will provide further evidence on long term effectiveness and safety. Conflict of interest: Ms. Huang, Katherine: No conflict of interest Chandnani, Arun: No conflict of interest Samaan, Sami: None Tan, Tingyi: I have no conflict of interests to declare. Ramesh, Prajith Raj: None Conlon, Caroline: No conflict of interest Klein, Jeremy: None Reddy, Nikhil: No conflict of interest Ayoub, Malek: None Cervantes Limon, Gabriela: none Myers, Melissa: None Bucaram, Martha: No conflict of interest Lieto, Stephen: No conflict of interest Scalzo, Nicholas: No conflict of interest Cohen, Benjamin: Abbvie - consulting and speaking ALPCO - consulting J & J Innovative Medicine - consulting Takeda - consulting and speaking Emmes Biopharma Services LLC - DSMB Pfizer - consulting Mohamed, Islam: nothing to declare Ciorba, Matthew: Advisory Board: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Consulting: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Grant contracts: Janssen, Pfizer, Incyte Shukla, Richa: Speakers bureau - Abbvie and Lilly Wright, Michael: None Xu, An Tao: No conflict of interest Chowla, Navreet: No conflict of interest Ogholikhan, Sina: Abbvie Medical Director Kujawski, Michelle: Abbvie Scientific Director Dulaney, David: Speaker bureau - Regeneron Speaker bureau - Sanofi Speaker bureau - Takeda Speaker bureau - Eli Lilly Fenster, Marc: none Benson, Caroline: No conflict of interest Alhobayb, Tamara: No conflict of interest Berinstein, Jeffrey: No conflict of interest Shivashankar, Raina: Abbvie and BMS - speaker bureau Janssen and Celltrion - grant for IBD fellowship funding Pfizer - consultant Bishu, Shrinivas: None Patel, Anish: speaker: abbvie, J & J, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Phathom, Takeda consultant: abbvie Ungaro, Ryan: Personal Fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda Johnson, Amanda: Research grant: Abbvie, Spyre Therapeutics Pekow, Joel R.: CVS Health - Consulting Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson - Stocks Yarur, Andres: Personal Fees: Consultant for Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Abbvie, Eli Lilly. Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Johnson and Johnson. Deepak, Parakkal: Parakkal Deepak has received research support under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the abstract from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi, Merck, Teva, Direct Biologics, Tr1x, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche Genentech, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Spyre and Agomab, has received consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson, Abbvie, Merck, Sobi, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Sandoz and CorEvitas, LLC and has served on the board of the Srategic Alliance for Intercultural Advocacy in GI.

Abstract Background Colonic strictures in Crohn’s disease (CD) present a complex and relatively underexplored clinical issue. Imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and intestinal ultrasound (IUS), have established criteria for evaluating small bowel CD strictures. However, radiologic definitions of benign colonic strictures and their diagnostic accuracy are not well-developed. Endoscopic definitions of colonic strictures are the most well-described. We conducted a systematic review to summarize definitions, diagnosis, and identification of inflammation and fibrosis of colonic strictures on endoscopy, CT, MR, and IUS. Methods A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, from inception to October 6, 2024, was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases to identify literature on diagnostic imaging of patients with colonic CD strictures. Only studies with comparison to endoscopy or imaging to a full-thickness histologic gold standard to differentiate fibrosis from inflammation were included. Two stage screening was completed in duplicate, and risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results 46 studies were eligible for inclusion of 4623 abstracts screened. Definitions of colonic strictures on CT, MR, and IUS were highly variable with combinations of bowel wall thickness, luminal narrowing, and pre-stenotic dilation. Endoscopic definitions of colonic strictures were the most consistently reported as lack of passage of a colonoscope through a narrowed lumen. Diagnostic imaging definitions used various combinations of increased bowel wall thickness, luminal narrowing, and pre-stenotic dilation with no clear cutoffs. Few studies directly compared imaging features with histologic or endoscopic gold standards, limiting evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. Meta-analyses were not conducted due to methodological heterogeneity of grading fibrosis across studies. In addition, statistical heterogeneity of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of colonic stricture diagnoses was limited by pooling with small bowel strictures in the studies. Conclusion This systematic review highlighted the absence of standardized definitions for diagnosing colonic Crohn’s disease strictures, particularly on diagnostic imaging, and the limited data distinguishing inflammatory from fibrotic components. Bowel wall thickening, luminal narrowing, and pre-stenotic dilation are key features of small bowel strictures, but their relevance to the colon requires further assessment. Establishing standardized definitions for colonic strictures that incorporate both endoscopic and imaging modalities is essential to advancing the field. Conflict of interest: Dr. Lu, Cathy: Advisory board - Abbvie, Johnson and Johnson, Takeda, Ferring, Merck, Celltrion, Lilly, Pfizer, Pendopharm, Agomab. Research Funding - Abbvie, Helmsley Charitable Trust, Alberta Innovates Dhaliwal, Ravdip: No conflict of interest Kellar, Amelia: No conflict of interest Rowan, Catherine: No conflict of interest St-Pierre, Joelle: Consultant for Pfizer, Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Pendopharm, and speaker for Takeda. Ernest-Suárez, Kenneth: Consulting/Advisory Board fees: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Ferring, Sandoz, SatisfAI, Takeda O’Brien, Maureen: No conflict of interest Rosentreter, Ryan: No conflict of interest Gulhati, Vishrut: No conflict of interest Baker, Mark: No conflict of interest Bettenworth, Dominik: DB is on the advisory board or consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Atheneum, BNG Service GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, CED-Service GmbH, Celltrion, Doctorflix, DGVS, Diaplan, Else Kröner-Fresenius Foundation, Falk Foundation, Galapagos, Guidepoint, Impulze, Ferring, Janssen Cilag, Lilly, Medical Tribune, MedTriX, MSD, Mylan, Onkowissen, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, Tetrameros, Thieme, Tillotts Pharma, UCB Biopiharma, Viatris and Vifor Pharma. Bruining, David: Advisory board fees from Janssen Bari, Dane: Grant from Helmsley Charitable Trust speaker honorarium from Siemens Healthineers support for attending meetings or travel from Siemens Healthineers member of the Olympus advisory board co-chair Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Inflammatory Bowel Disease Disease Focused Panel (IBD DFP) and SAR Photon-Counting Detector CT Emerging Technology Commission and chair of the Society for Advanced Body Imaging Scientific Committee. Dillman, Jonathan: Grants from Philips Healthcare, GE HealthCare, Motilent, Perspectum, Guerbet, and Bracco. El Ouali, Sara: Speaker and/or consulting fees from Takeda, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Abbvie. Fletcher, John: Grant supports from Siemens Healthineers Gordon, Ilyssa: Grants to institution from Morphic Therapeutics, Alimentiv, Pliant Therapeutics, and UCB patent pending with Case Western Reserve University on radiomics signatures Jairath, Vipul: Consulting Fees: Abbvie, Alimentiv, Amgen, Anaptys Bio, Asahi Kasei, Asieris, Astra Zeneca, Attovia, Blackbird Labs, BMS, Boehringer Ingleheim, Biomebank, Caldera, Calluna, Catalytic Health, Celltrion, Ensho, Enthera, Exeliome Biosciences, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Granite Bio, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mountainfield, MRM Health, Nxera, Organon, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pendopharm, Pioneering Medicine, Pfizer, Prometheus, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, SCOPE, Shattuck Labs, Sorriso, Spyre, Synedgen, Takeda, Teva, Tillotts, Union Therapeutics, Ventus, Ventyx, Vividion, Xencor, Zealand Pharma. Feagan, Brian Gordon: Consulting Fees: AbbVie, Abivax, Adaxion, Adiso, AgomAB Therapeutics, Akros, Alira Health, Ally Bridge Group, Apini Therapeutics, Argenx, Attovia Tx, Avoro Capital Advisors, Belmore Law, Biora Therapeutics, Blackbird Laboratories, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Boxer Capital, Celgene/BMS, Clarivate, Connect Biopharm, EcoR1, Eli Lilly, Ensho Therapeutics, Equillium, Evida, Enveda, Evommune Inc. Faes Farma, First Wave, Forbion, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, General Atlantic, Genesis Therapeutics, Gerson Lehrman Group, Gilead, Guidepoint, Imhotex, ImiDomics, Immunic Therapeutics, Janssen, Japan Tobacco Inc., LifeMine Therapeutics, Mage Biologics, Merck, Mirador Therapeutics, Mobius Care, Monte Rosa Tx, Morphic Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Novartis, Nxera, OncoC3, Palisade Bio, Pendopharm, Pfizer,Q32 Bio, REDX, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, Sorriso, Spyre Therapeutics, Sun Pharma, Surrozen Inc., Synedgen, Takeda, Tegus Inc., Teva, Tillotts, Trex Bio, TR1X Inc. TVM Lifesciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Versant Ventures, Vida Ventures, Ysios Capital, Zagbio Stock Shareholder: Connect Biopharm, EnGene, Evida, SRT, Imidomics, Enveda Rieder, Florian: Personal Fees: Adiso, Adnovate, Agomab, Allergan, AbbVie, Arena, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene/BMS, Celltrion, CDISC, Celsius, Cowen, Ferring, Galapagos, Galmed, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer, Granite, Guidepoint, Helmsley, Horizon Therapeutics, Image Analysis Limited, Index Pharma, Landos, Jannsen, Koutif, Mestag, Metacrine, Mopac, Morphic, Organovo, Origo, Palisade, Pfizer, Pliant, Prometheus Biosciences, Receptos, RedX, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, Surmodics, Surrozen, Takeda, Techlab, Teva, Theravance, Thetis, UCB, Ysios, 89Bio

Abstract Background A subset of risankizumab (RZB)-treated patients experience suboptimal or secondary loss of response to standard dosing. We explored factors associated with future RZB dose-optimization, and outcomes of optimization in a multicenter consortium of adults with Crohn’s Disease (CD). Methods Baseline characteristics at time of RZB initiation and subsequent clinical, endoscopic, and biochemical outcomes were collected in a multi-center cohort. Outcomes for dose-optimized RZB were reported as clinical response and remission (based on HBI or PGA when HBI unavailable), endoscopic remission (based on SEMA-CD or absence of ulcers when SEMA-CD not available), and biochemical response. Characteristics were compared between standard and dose-optimized groups using chi-square and two-sample t-tests. Additional models adjusting for age and sex assessed predictors of dose optimization. Results We identified 309 patients treated with standard dose and 58 for whom dose-optimized RZB was recommended. Of the 58, 29 were excluded from outcomes analysis due to lack of follow-up (n = 19) or insurance denial of dose optimization (n = 10). Demographic information is outlined in Table 1. Baseline characteristics associated with future dose optimization included number of prior advanced therapies (ATs) (OR, 1.29, p < 0.001), prior anti-TNF (OR,4.06; p = 0.022), and prior ustekinumab (UST) use (OR,1.82; p = 0.053) (Table 2). The 29 patients included in the outcome analysis received dose-optimized RZB for primary non-response (n = 2), partial response (n = 23), or secondary loss of response (n = 4) after a median of 321 days (IQR, 234-440) from index RZB start. Median follow-up after dose optimization was 217 days (IQR, 147-331). All patients were AT-exposed (Table 1). Baseline clinical symptoms were present in 27 patients (93.1%), with median HBI of 6.5 (IQR, 6.0-8.0). Active endoscopic disease was observed in 11/12 patients (91.7%) who had baseline endoscopy. Dosing was every 4 weeks in 19 (65.5%), every 6 weeks in 9 (31.0%), and combined IV re-induction plus every 4-weeks in 1 (3.4%) patient. Clinical response and remission was seen in 16 (55.2%) and 12 (41.4%) patients, respectively. A ≥ 50% CRP reduction was seen in 5/12 (41.7%) patients with baseline elevated CRP. Among 7 patients with baseline active endoscopic disease with available follow-up, 3 (42.9%) achieved endoscopic remission. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion In this multi-center retrospective cohort, prior AT-exposure (especially anti-TNF) was associated with need for RZB dose-optimization. Dose optimization successfully captured clinical response in a significant proportion of patients who experienced partial response or loss of response to RZB. Conflict of interest: Johnson, Amanda: Research grant: Abbvie, Spyre Therapeutics Ramesh, Prajith Raj: None Said, Hyder: No conflict of interest Huang, Katherine: No conflict of interest Devi, Jalpa: none Pekow, Joel R.: CVS Health - Consulting Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson - Stocks Alhobayb, Tamara: No conflict of interest Bassmeyer, Blake: No conflict of interest Mohamed, Mouhand: No conflict of interest Shivashankar, Raina: Abbvie and BMS - speaker bureau Janssen and Celltrion - grant for IBD fellowship funding Pfizer - consultant Rathi, Jaya: No conflict of interest Luu, Bryan: No conflict of interest Khan, Abdul: No conflict of interest Loftus, Jr, Edward: Grant: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Receptos, Robarts Clinical Trials, Takeda, Theravance, UCB. Personal Fees: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB. Bishu, Shrinivas: None Patel, Anish: speaker: abbvie, J & J, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Phathom, Takeda consultant: abbvie Shukla, Richa: Speakers bureau - Abbvie and Lilly Yarur, Andres: Personal Fees: Consultant for Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Abbvie, Eli Lilly. Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Johnson and Johnson. Ungaro, Ryan: Personal Fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda Deepak, Parakkal: Parakkal Deepak has received research support under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the abstract from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi, Merck, Teva, Direct Biologics, Tr1x, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche Genentech, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Spyre and Agomab, has received consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson, Abbvie, Merck, Sobi, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Sandoz and CorEvitas, LLC and has served on the board of the Srategic Alliance for Intercultural Advocacy in GI.

Objectives Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is classified into parkinsonian (MSA‐P) and cerebellar (MSA‐C) phenotypes based on predominant motor features, with corresponding pathological classifications of striatonigral (SN) degeneration and olivopontocerebellar (OPC) atrophy; however, disease progression patterns remain poorly understood. We aimed to identify novel MSA subtypes based on neuronal loss patterns using unsupervised machine learning. Methods We applied the Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn) algorithm to analyze neuronal loss patterns in 167 autopsy‐confirmed MSA. Neuronal loss was semi‐quantitatively assessed in 5 brain regions: putamen, substantia nigra, pontine nucleus, inferior olivary nucleus, and cerebellar Purkinje cells. Obtained subtypes were validated by clinicopathological information. Results Three distinct subtypes were identified: SN‐early subtype (54% [86/160]) with initial SN neuronal loss, OPC‐early subtype (28% [44/160]) with early OPC involvement, and SN‐OPC‐synchronous subtype (19% [30/160]) with concurrent early neuronal loss in both systems. These subtypes corresponded well with clinical phenotypes. The SN‐OPC‐synchronous subtype exhibited significantly shorter survival (median 6.2 years vs 6.9 and 7.4 years in SN‐early and OPC‐early subtypes; p = 0.0049), more frequent rapid progression (57% vs 24% and 41% in SN‐early and OPC‐early subtypes; p = 0.0048), and more frequent early falls (70% vs 36% and 50% in SN‐early and OPC‐early subtypes; p = 0.0039). Immunohistochemical validation confirmed extensive α‐synuclein pathology in both SN and OPC systems in the SN‐OPC‐synchronous subtype. Interpretation The SN‐OPC‐synchronous subtype provides insights into α‐synuclein propagation mechanisms, suggesting multiple initial seeding sites rather than unidirectional spread. This computational approach uncovered disease heterogeneity undetectable by conventional methods, potentially benefiting clinical trials through patient stratification. ANN NEUROL 2026;99:989–1000

Background. Although solid organ transplant prolongs survival in end-stage disease, recipients face high symptom burden and complex decisions at multiple junctures. Palliative care (PC) may address these needs, but referrals in transplant programs are infrequent, often reactive, and the benefits remain unclear. Methods. We retrospectively studied 12 676 heart, liver, lung, and kidney transplants across 3 Mayo Clinic sites (2018–2024). PC encounters were classified as pretransplant (≤1 y before admission), peritransplant (during hospitalization), or posttransplant (≤1 y after discharge). Results. Only 8.3% engaged PC, with patterns varying by organ and timing. Heart programs demonstrated the highest overall engagement, primarily pre- and peritransplant, whereas lung and kidney referrals occurred more often after discharge. Earlier timing coincided with longer survival, whereas peri- and posttransplant encounters occurred closer to death. In heart transplantation, pre- and peritransplant PC were observed in recipients with lower procedural volume and fewer short-term readmissions. Liver and lung cohorts displayed variable patterns. Kidney referrals occurred infrequently and were concentrated among recipients with higher morbidity. Timing of inpatient consultation showed a strong positive correlation with hospital length of stay, and pretransplant PC coincided with higher rates of goals-of-care discussions and fewer hospital interventions. Adapting screening criteria to focus on high-risk recipients, PC was associated with fewer short-term readmissions for heart and lung recipients. Conclusions. PC among solid organ transplant was infrequent and varied. Referral timing often aligned with patient morbidity and mortality. Structured, prospective validation of screening methods may identify patients most likely to benefit from palliative involvement.

Abstract Radiation therapy (RT) has long been included in the treatment of glioblastoma (GBM). However, radioresistance in cancer cells as well as toxicity in normal tissues are major obstacles to clinical efficacy. Improved understanding of the mechanisms of tumor microenvironment-induced radioresistance during and after radiation therapy can provide fundamental insights to improve clinical outcomes in GBM. Here, using three-dimensional engineered hydrogel models in vitro, we report the influence of extracellular matrix, hypoxia, and adjacent neuronal cells in radiotherapeutic sensitivity. We find that mechanical cues and oxygen availability regulate cellular response to radiation, with softer matrices allowing for more DNA damage. Hyaluronan fragments from the extracellular matrix also modulate rapid metabolic response to radiation, especially in hypoxic environments. We show that neuronal networks influence tumor metabolic activity and the inflammatory response. Overall, we demonstrate here that alternative radiation strategies, such as low dose rate radiation therapy and microenvironmental regulation, have the potential to be more effective in a specific subset of radiosensitive GBM tumors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) are increasingly detected and require careful management to prevent rupture. No externally validated score currently predicts procedural risk to guide treatment decisions. We developed and validated 2 predictive scores for complications after endovascular treatment (EVT) or neurosurgical treatment (NT) of UIA using routinely collected clinical and aneurysmal features. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study including patients with UIA treated with EVT or NT across 15 neurovascular centers (2014-2024). Predictive models were built using multivariable logistic regression, with variables derived from Delphi consensus. The primary outcome was a composite safety end point: new neurological deficits, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) worsening (≥1 point or mRS 2-5 within 30 days), or procedural death. Internal validation used bootstrapping, and external validation was performed temporally and institutionally. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration. Final scores, named Morbidity and Mortality Associated Risk in the Treatment of UIAs (MARTA)-EVT and MARTA-NT, were compared with existing models identified through systematic review. RESULTS: Among 2647 patients (1907 EVT and 740 NT), procedural complications occurred in 6.3% (EVT) and 12.8% (NT). Independent predictors included age, baseline mRS, aneurysm location, size, morphology, and procedural factors. MARTA-EVT (AUROC = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.57-0.78) and MARTA-NT (AUROC = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.54-0.77) showed moderate discrimination and good calibration. MARTA-EVT outperformed existing models; MARTA-NT performed similarly to SAFETEA. Predictive models are available open-source: https://martascoreapp.shinyapps.io/martascoreapp/. CONCLUSION: MARTA-EVT and MARTA-NT are validated tools for predicting procedural risks in UIA treatment and may support patient counseling and clinical decision making.