Sex Difference in the Effect of Time From Symptoms to Surgery on Benefit From Carotid Endarterectomy for Transient Ischemic Attack and Nondisabling Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early studies showed that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) carried a high risk if performed within days after a large ischemic stroke. Therefore, many surgeons delay CEA for 4 to 6 weeks after any stroke. To determine the effect of delay to CEA on operative risk and benefit, we pooled data from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and the European Carotid Surgery Trial. METHODS: Risk of ipsilateral ischemic stroke in the medical group, operative risk of stroke and death, and overall benefit from surgery were determined in relation to the time from the last symptomatic event to randomization. Operative risk of stroke and death was also determined in relation to the time to surgery. Analyses were stratified by sex and type of presenting event. RESULTS: The 30-day perioperative risk of stroke and death was unrelated to the time since the last symptomatic event and was not increased in patients operated <2 weeks after nondisabling stroke. In contrast, the risk of ipsilateral ischemic stroke in the medical group fell rapidly with time since event (P<0.001), as did the absolute benefit from surgery (P=0.001). This decline in benefit with time was unrelated to the type of presenting event but was more pronounced in women than men (difference P<0.001). Benefit in women was confined to those randomized <2 weeks after their last event, irrespective of severity of stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: CEA can be performed safely within 2 weeks of nondisabling ischemic stroke. Benefit from endarterectomy declines rapidly with increasing delay, particularly in women.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".