Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting Lead to Improved Cognitive Performance in Patients with Severe Carotid Artery Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In patients with severe carotid artery stenosis, the effects of carotid artery reopening, achieved either by carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS), on cognitive functions remain elusive. Herein, we conducted a prospective study to determine whether and to what extent CEA and CAS affected cognitive performance. Patients admitted to the Department of Neurology or Vascular Surgery in Nanjing First Hospital from December 2012 to March 2015 with a diagnosis of severe carotid artery stenosis (>70%) were included in the study. Among them, 77 patients underwent CEA, 81 patients underwent CAS, and 77 patients who refused to receive aforementioned interventions were enrolled in control group. Of note, all patients in this study received basic pharmacological treatment according to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines. Cognitive functions were evaluated by a broad spectrum of neuropsychological tests including the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and event related potential P300 on the day prior to and at 3 months after indicated intervention. When compared with basic pharmacological treatment, both CEA and CAS significantly increased the scores of MMSE and MoCA at 3 months following procedures. Meanwhile, a significant reduction of P300 score was also observed in patients underwent CEA or CAS. In addition, the changes in MMSE, MoCA and P300 scores over time between CEA and CAS groups were not statistically significant. Taken together, our findings suggest an improvement of cognitive functions following carotid artery reopening. Meanwhile, the beneficial effects of CEA and CAS on cognitive performance seem to be equivalent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".