Hyperperfusion Syndrome: Toward a Stricter Definition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hyperperfusion syndrome is a rare and potentially devastating complication of carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. With the advent of new imaging techniques, we reviewed our experience with this phenomenon. METHODS: This report is a retrospective review of 129 consecutive cases of carotid endarterectomy performed between June 1, 2000, and May 31, 2002, and 44 consecutive cases of carotid artery angioplasty and stenting performed between January 1, 1997, and May 31, 2002. We specifically searched for examples of patients who developed postprocedural nonthrombotic neurological deficits that typified the hyperperfusion syndrome. RESULTS: Seven cases of hyperperfusion syndrome occurred, four after endarterectomy (3.1% of carotid endarterectomy cases) and three after stenting (6.8% of stenting cases). The cases of hyperperfusion were classified as presenting with 1). acute focal edema (two cases with stroke-like presentation, attributable to edema immediately after revascularization), 2). acute hemorrhage (two cases of intracerebral hemorrhage immediately after stenting and one case immediately after endarterectomy), or 3). delayed classic presentation (two cases with seizures, focal motor weakness, and/or late intracerebral hemorrhage at least 24 hours after endarterectomy). CONCLUSION: Hyperperfusion syndrome may be more common and more variable in clinical presentation than previously appreciated.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".