Identifying high-risk asymptomatic carotid stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With more intensive medical therapy, the risk of stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is now below the risk of carotid endarterectomy or stenting (intervention); ∼ 90% of patients would be better with only medical therapy. It is important, therefore, to have methods to identify the ∼ 10% of patients who stand to benefit from intervention. AREAS COVERED: We review the evidence that the risk of asymptomatic stenosis is now below the risk of intervention, and evidence for several approaches to identifying high-risk ACS: transcranial Doppler embolus detection, echolucency and neovascularity on ultrasound, ulceration on three-dimensional ultrasound, plaque composition on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), plaque inflammation on positron emission tomography and assessment of cerebral blood flow reserve. EXPERT OPINION: Carotid endarterectomy or stenting should be performed only in patients with ACS if they have microemboli on transcranial Doppler, three or more ulcers detected on three-dimensional ultrasound or other features of unstable plaque such as plaque echolucency on ultrasound, intraplaque hemorrhage detected on MRI, inflamed plaques detected on PET/CT or reduced cerebral blood flow reserve. Most patients with ACS (∼ 90%) would be better off with intensive medical therapy than with intervention.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".