Effect of Statin on Progression of Symptomatic Intracranial Atherosclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS) is a dynamic disease that frequently progresses. Statins have been shown to have anti-atherosclerotic activity. We therefore investigated whether statins could prevent progression of ICAS. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed 55 patients with acute ischemic stroke and symptomatic ICAS in the middle cerebral or basilar arteries as shown on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), with follow-up MRA performed more than 1 year after the index stroke. Change in ICAS was classified as progressive, regressive, or stable. Baseline clinical characteristics and risk factor control during follow-up were assessed, and laboratory tests were performed at the time of follow-up MRA. The statin group was defined as patients regularly treated with statins for more than 75% of the follow-up period; the remaining patients were defined as the non-statin group. RESULTS: At a median follow-up time of 21.8 months (range, 11.8-66.1 months), the statin group consisted of 26 (47.3%) patients and the non-statin group of 29 (52.7%). During follow-up, 6 (10.9%) patients progressed, 14 (25.5%) regressed, and 35 (63.6%) remained stable. Statin treatment was significantly associated with non-progression of ICAS (p=0.024). Two patients in the non-statin group had recurrent strokes. Border-zone infarcts were associated with progression of ICAS (3/6, 50%; p=0.007), whereas risk factors and inflammatory biomarkers were not related to progression. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with statins may prevent progression of symptomatic ICAS. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required to confirm that statins protect against such progression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".