Review: Treatment options for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis were compared
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club20 August 2013Review: Treatment options for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis were comparedKuan Huei Ng, MD, Wieslaw Oczkowski, MDKuan Huei Ng, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (K.H.N., W.O.), Wieslaw Oczkowski, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (K.H.N., W.O.)Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-4-201308200-02006 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationRaman G, Moorthy D, Hadar N, et al. Management strategies for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:676-85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23648949Clinical Impact RatingsGIM/FP/GP: Hospitalists: Neurology: References1 Rothwell PM, Eliasziw M, Gutnikov SA, et al; Carotid Endarterectomy Trialists' Collaboration. Analysis of pooled data from the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Lancet. 2003;361:107-16. [PMID: 12531577] Google Scholar2 Woo K, Garg J, Hye RJ, Dilley RB. Contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke. 2010;41:975-9. [PMID: 20339122] Google Scholar3 Rudarakanchana N, Dialynas M, Halliday A. Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial−2 (ACST-2): rationale for a randomised clinical trial comparing carotid endarterectomy with carotid artery stenting in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38:239-42. [PMID: 19540137] Google Scholar4 Chaturvedi S, Wechsler LR. Carotid revascularization strategies: the need for more data [Editorial]. Stroke. 2012;43:929-30. [PMID: 22308242] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Kuan Huei Ng, MD; Wieslaw Oczkowski, MDAffiliations: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (K.H.N., W.O.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 20 August 2013Volume 159, Issue 4Page: JC6KeywordsCarotid arteriesCarotid endarterectomyCohort studiesDatabasesDrug administrationFoodHealth care qualityHealth services researchHospitalistsMyocardial infarctionNeurologyPopulation statisticsRevascularizationStatinsStenosisStrokeSystematic reviews ePublished: 8 March 2020 Issue Published: 20 August 2013 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2013 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".