Transcranial Doppler Microembolic Signal Monitoring is Useful in Diagnosis and Treatment of Carotid Artery Dissection: Two Case Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arterial dissection is the underlying stroke mechanism in approximately 2.5% of all strokes and the second leading cause of stroke in patients younger than 45 years of age. Controversy exists regarding the medical management of carotid dissection. Both anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents have been used with no compelling data supporting one therapy over the other. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) emboli monitoring may help in establishing the diagnosis and guide the treatment by measuring the frequency of microembolic signals (MES). We present two cases of carotid dissection where TCD monitoring for MES helped in establishing the diagnosis and proved useful in identifying that standard anticoagulation treatment was not preventing emboli. Both cases were also monitored for emboli count reduction with subsequent antiplatelet therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".