The Risk and Benefit of Endarterectomy in Women With Symptomatic Internal Carotid Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Perioperative risk and long-term benefit of carotid endarterectomy (CE) are not detailed in women with symptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of CE versus medical therapy in women and men with symptomatic ICA stenosis. METHODS: Data were taken from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (873 women, 2012 men) and the ASA and Carotid Endarterectomy trial (335 women, 813 men). RESULTS: The 30-day perioperative risk of death was higher in women than in men (2.3% versus 0.8%, P=0.002). Higher perioperative risk of stroke and death was also observed (7.6% versus 5.9%) but not statistically significant. With > or =70% stenosis, the 5-year absolute risk reduction (ARR) in stroke from CE was similar between women (15.1%) and men (17.3%). With 50% to 69% stenosis, CE was not beneficial in women (ARR=3.0%, P=0.94), contrary to men (ARR=10.0%, P=0.02). Medically treated women had low risk for stroke. A stroke prognosis instrument (SPI-II) assigned points to 7 factors that identified higher risk for medically treated women: 3 points for hemispheric (not retinal) event, history of diabetes, previous stroke; 2 for age older than 70 years, stroke (not transient ischemic attack); 1 for severe hypertension, history of myocardial infarction. CE was beneficial only for 29.0% of women with 50% to 69% stenosis who had the highest total score of 8 to 15 (ARR=8.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Women and men with > or =70% symptomatic stenosis had similar long-term benefit from CE, although the perioperative risks were higher for women. CE was not beneficial for women with 50% to 69% stenosis without other risk factors for stroke.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".