MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113475904 · doi:10.1161/01.str.31.9.2168

CT Angiography for the Detection and Characterization of Carotid Artery Bifurcation Disease

2000· article· en· W2113475904 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn B. Anderson, Rob Ashforth, David E. Steinke, Reka Ferdinandy, J. Max Findlay

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStenosisDigital subtraction angiographyRadiologyAngiographyCarotid bifurcationGold standard (test)Stroke (engine)Computed tomographic angiographyOcclusionMaximum intensity projectionCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) is a relatively new and minimally invasive method of imaging intracranial and extracranial blood vessels. The main purpose of this study was to compare CTA to the current gold standard of arterial imaging, digital subtraction angiography (DSA), for the detection and quantification of carotid artery bifurcation stenosis. We also compared Doppler ultrasound (US) with these 2 techniques. METHODS: In a prospective study, 40 patients (80 carotid arteries) underwent CTA, US, and DSA. Patients chosen for inclusion were symptomatic with TIAs or stroke and had initial US screening that indicated >50% carotid stenosis on the side appropriate for the symptoms. Source axial, maximum intensity projection (MIP), and shaded-surface display (SSD) images were produced for each CTA study. The US, CTA, and DSA images were reviewed, with the degree of stenosis quantified and presence of ulcers determined; each type of imaging was reviewed by a separate investigator blinded to the results of the other 2 modalities. The results of CTA and US imaging were compared with the DSA images for degrees of carotid stenosis. RESULTS: CTA source axial images correlated with DSA more closely than MIP or SSD images for all degrees of stenosis. The correlation between US and DSA (0.808) was poorer than that between CTA and DSA (0.892 to 0.922). CTA performed well in the detection of mild (0% to 29%) carotid stenosis, as well as carotid occlusion, with values for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy near 100%. In determining that a stenosis was >50% by DSA measurement, CTA was again useful, with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 89%, 91%, and 90%, respectively. While CTA was quite specific and accurate in identifying degrees of stenoses in either the 50% to 69% or the 70% to 99% ranges, in this task it was much less sensitive: 65% for 50%-69% stenosis and 73% for 70%-99% stenosis. These results did not change significantly when only the data from the most clinically relevant symptomatic arteries were analyzed. CTA was found to correlate quite well with DSA in the detection of ulcers associated with the carotid stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: CTA was found to be an excellent examination for the detection of carotid occlusion and categorization of stenosis in either the 0%-29% or >50% ranges. However, CTA was unable to reliably distinguish between moderate (50%-69%) and severe (70%-99%) stenosis, which is an important limitation in the investigation and treatment of carotid stenosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations212
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207