MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168673889 · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1610

Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass Surgery for Stroke Prevention in Hemodynamic Cerebral Ischemia

2011· article· en· W2168673889 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William J. Powers, William R. Clarke, Robert L. Grubb, Tom O. Videen, Harold P. Adams, Colin P. Derdeyn, for the COSS Investigators

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineMiddle cerebral arteryStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialIschemiaSurgerySuperficial temporal arteryHemodynamicsAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic internal carotid artery occlusion (AICAO) and hemodynamic cerebral ischemia are at high risk for subsequent stroke when treated medically. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass surgery, added to best medical therapy, reduces subsequent ipsilateral ischemic stroke in patients with recently symptomatic AICAO and hemodynamic cerebral ischemia. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomized, open-label, blinded-adjudication clinical treatment trial conducted from 2002 to 2010. SETTING: Forty-nine clinical centers and 18 positron emission tomography (PET) centers in the United States and Canada. The majority were academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with arteriographically confirmed AICAO causing hemispheric symptoms within 120 days and hemodynamic cerebral ischemia identified by ipsilateral increased oxygen extraction fraction measured by PET. Of 195 patients who were randomized, 97 were randomized to receive surgery and 98 to no surgery. Follow-up for the primary end point until occurrence, 2 years, or termination of trial was 99% complete. No participant withdrew because of adverse events. INTERVENTIONS: Anastomosis of superficial temporal artery branch to a middle cerebral artery cortical branch for the surgical group. Antithrombotic therapy and risk factor intervention were recommended for all participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: For all participants who were assigned to surgery and received surgery, the combination of (1) all stroke and death from surgery through 30 days after surgery and (2) ipsilateral ischemic stroke within 2 years of randomization. For the nonsurgical group and participants assigned to surgery who did not receive surgery, the combination of (1) all stroke and death from randomization to randomization plus 30 days and (2) ipsilateral ischemic stroke within 2 years of randomization. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early for futility. Two-year rates for the primary end point were 21.0% (95% CI, 12.8% to 29.2%; 20 events) for the surgical group and 22.7% (95% CI, 13.9% to 31.6%; 20 events) for the nonsurgical group (P = .78, Z test), a difference of 1.7% (95% CI, -10.4% to 13.8%). Thirty-day rates for ipsilateral ischemic stroke were 14.4% (14/97) in the surgical group and 2.0% (2/98) in the nonsurgical group, a difference of 12.4% (95% CI, 4.9% to 19.9%). CONCLUSION: Among participants with recently symptomatic AICAO and hemodynamic cerebral ischemia, EC-IC bypass surgery plus medical therapy compared with medical therapy alone did not reduce the risk of recurrent ipsilateral ischemic stroke at 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00029146.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations795
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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