In TIA or stroke patients with intracranial arterial stenosis, aggressive medical therapy was superior to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for 30-day risk of further stroke or death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Chimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, Derdeyn CP, et al. Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med 2011;365:993–1003.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Patients with a recent transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or ischaemic stroke attributed to 70–99% intracranial artery stenosis have a 23% of 1-year risk for subsequent stroke. Over the past decade, intracranial angioplasty and stenting (IAS) has increasingly been used, without convincing evidence of efficacy or rigorous assessment of safety. Stenting and aggressive medical management for preventing recurrent stroke in intracranial stenosis (SAMMPRIS) was a clinical trial that sought to determine whether IAS combined with intensive medical management (IMM) was superior to IMM alone in the prevention of stroke and death. Subjects were adults with 30–80 years of age, and had suffered a TIA or non-disabling stroke within 30 days of enrolment, attributed to an intracranial stenosis of 70–99% as documented … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DChimowitz%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BI.%26rft.volume%253D365%26rft.issue%253D11%26rft.spage%253D993%26rft.epage%253D1003%26rft.atitle%253DStenting%2Bversus%2Baggressive%2Bmedical%2Btherapy%2Bfor%2Bintracranial%2Barterial%2Bstenosis.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa1105335%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21899409%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1105335&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21899409&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F17%2F4%2F115.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000294857300007&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".