Identifying Patients With Symptomatic Carotid Artery Disease at High and Low Risk of Severe Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The extent of cardiac investigation required in patients with coexistent symptomatic carotid and cardiac disease is unsettled. This study compared the outlook for patients symptomatic from carotid stenosis with and without a history of symptomatic ischemic heart disease (IHD). METHODS: The risk of combined outcome of severe myocardial infarction and cardiac death was evaluated in patients from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. RESULTS: A total of 1124 patients had a history of symptomatic IHD and 1691 did not. The median age was 66 years; 70% were male. With history of IHD at entry, the 5-year risk of combined outcome of severe myocardial infarction and cardiac death was 16.5% (95% CI, 13.9 to 19.0). Without history at entry, risk was 6.7% (95% CI, 5.1 to 8.3). Risk of unheralded severe MI and cardiac death was only 3.3%. One hundred ninety-four patients had > or =4 of the following risk factors: age > or =75 years, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, smoking in past year, left ventricular hypertrophy on ECG, myocardial infarction on ECG, or creatinine >115 micromol/L. The 5-year risk of severe myocardial infarction or cardiac death increased to 33.9% for patients with > or =4 risk factors and a history of IHD and to 23.5% for those without history of IHD. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis without symptomatic IHD had a low risk of severe myocardial infarction and cardiac death. With many risk factors, these patients had a risk high enough to warrant cardiac investigations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".